Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Iraq

Terry Rooney: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: Although insurgent attacks have continued, particularly in the four largely Sunni provinces of central Iraq, their overall number has declined since the elections. The majority of attacks are against coalition forces, but one attack in the town of Hillah, south of Baghdad, recently killed more than 160 civilians. Significant parts of Iraq, including Multi-National Division (South-East), remain relatively quiet.

Terry Rooney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the British troops are doing a superb job in southern Iraq, particularly on regeneration and how does he see that process spreading to the rest of the country, particularly with the advent of the new Government?

Geoff Hoon: In areas where security is good and the security situation remains relatively calm it is important that we build on that to allow the delivery of reconstruction projects. I take this opportunity tocongratulate the Department for International Development on its work and on the excellent way in which it has co-operated with military forces in MND (South-East) in delivering several reconstruction projects concerned with running water, sewerage, power and the like. For the moment, it is crucial that the majority of work on military-sponsored projects is done by local Iraqis and contractors, whose wages help the local economy still further.

Peter Tapsell: Will the Secretary of State confirm the estimate by the head of the Iraqi intelligence services, General Shahwani, that the number of insurgents has grown to more than 200,000, of whom about 40,000 are hard-core members and the rest are active supporters? If that is the case, what will the military situation be in future?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that estimate; in fact, I do not recognise those figures. I do not in any way underestimate the severity, from time to time, of insurgent attacks, but our evidence is that a great number of those attacks are largely the work of foreign fighters—fanatics who have come into Iraq from other countries in order to continue a campaign against the west. As I said, their target has mostly been innocent Iraqis. That is obviously to be deplored and demonstrates that they are not at all interested in anything other than promoting violence and anarchy, and that they have to be defeated.

Ann Clwyd: While I would agree with my right hon. Friend about security and the need for much improvement in that respect, does he agree that the turnout of the people of Iraq on election day should be commended, as should everybody involved with it? I was in Basra, where 80 per cent. of the population turned out, despite security threats and some mortar attacks. That is a mark of the courage of the people and of everybody involved in security in Iraq on that particular day.

Geoff Hoon: Scarcely a session of Defence questions goes by without my paying tribute to my hon. Friend, whom I again thank for the efforts that she made in the course of the elections. She visited a number of polling stations where she was able to see for herself what we all learned about the remarkable courage and determination of the Iraqi people to take their opportunity to vote, supported, as has perhaps not been sufficiently noted, by Iraqi security forces. The fact that trained Iraqis took responsibility for security at the polling stations is an enormously positive sign for the future, in terms not only of the election but of their capability to deal with their own security.

Paul Keetch: Although we all accept that the British troops are doing an excellent job in Iraq and pay tribute to those brave Iraqis who voted, the security situation remains a concern. Last week, the UK took over from Dutch troops who have pulled out of Iraq. Does the Secretary of State envisage that we will have further responsibilities to cover other coalition partners who may withdraw from Iraq in the near future? Given that only last week we sent an extra 500 troops of the 1st Battalion Royal Green Jackets to Kosovo, is not now a good time for him to cancel his planned reduction in Army infantry numbers?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. He referred to the withdrawal from the south of the Dutch forces, to whom I pay tribute for the efforts that they have made over a long period. We always made it clear that there would be adjustments in the size and the nature of the forces in our area of responsibility. I am delighted to say that the Dutch will in large part be replaced by Australian forces, who will come in to work alongside the Japanese and forces from the United Kingdom. The overall effect on security and the numbers required to provide security in the south will not be affected in any way.

Alice Mahon: On election day, Dr. Malko, the president of the Assyrian National Assembly, claimed that up to 400,000 Assyrians and other ethnic minorities were not allowed to vote because ballot boxes did not reach them and Kurdish militia prevented them from going to vote. He has appealed to the Prime Minister to ensure that they get representation given what happened. Has that been investigated? What representation will those minorities have in the new Government?

Geoff Hoon: As I understand it, there were difficulties in some parts of Iraq but they were not significant. A small number of complaints were made to the independent elections committee for Iraq, and if that issue has been raised with it, I am sure that it will be properly and thoroughly investigated.

Nicholas Soames: In praising the admirable work of the Queen's Dragoon Guards, who are being asked to cover 30,000 square miles of desert, will the Secretary of State assure us, following their deployment to Muthanna province, that our forces who are deployed to Iraq are adequately trained and equipped to fulfil their role effectively, safely and efficiently?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the armed forces was in Iraq last week and I give hon. Members the absolute assurance that our forces are properly trained and equipped and doing a magnificent job, not least by progressively reducing the number of incidents in their area of responsibility, working closely with Iraqi forces and training those forces to take responsibility. They are gradually restoring matters so that Iraqis may be entirely responsible for their own affairs at some stage in the future.

Nicholas Soames: They certainly do a magnificent job, as always, and, invariably nowadays, they do more with less. However, is the Secretary of State aware of the article that appeared in The Sun on 9 March? It stated:
	"British troops were forced on guard duty in Iraq without bullets in their guns; Quartermasters refused to give them any ammo because the soldiers had not passed their weapons-handling tests and soldiers have also been sent on dangerous convoy guard missions without ambush training",
	while reserve forces
	"have had to put their lives at risk without vital equipment because of cock-ups in logistics".
	Does the Secretary of State agree that that is wholly against all the conventions in the British Army of training troops for operations? What steps does he intend to take to deal with those problems?

Geoff Hoon: Obviously, that particular report is being investigated; a thorough investigation will be carried out. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, in the course of his otherwise congratulatory remarks about British troops, could not resist a political side-swipe. I suppose that there is something in the air. However, to respond in kind, I point out that there has been a steadily increasing defence budget in the past five years—in stark contrast with the steadily reducing budget when he was in office.

David Winnick: Whichever line one took on the war, does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be the greatest condemnation of the atrocities that criminals and terrorists have perpetrated, including beheadings, mutilations of bodies and, only last week, the murder of 125 Iraqis in one go? Does my right hon. Friend know of any Member who defends such crimes and atrocities? If there is such a Member, would not it be a good idea for that person not to be in the next Parliament?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot imagine—at least not out loud—to whom my hon. Friend refers. I accept that some people had principled reasons for opposing the war, but it is vital that everyone recognises that we have a common interest with the Iraqi people in defeating terrorists and fanatics. Every single member state of NATO is contributing to training and assisting the people of Iraq to ensure that those terrorists and fanatics are defeated.

Edward Garnier: Does the Secretary of State accept that it may be better for Iraq's long-term security if members of the Iraqi armed forces could attend our three officer academies, the Joint Services Command and Staff college near Swindon and possibly the Royal College of Defence Studies? If so, do the Government have any plans to ensure that that can happen?

Geoff Hoon: There are a range of training opportunities for Iraqi officers. I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's underlying proposition that it is important that we train not only soldiers but those who are to take responsibility for leadership and the difficult decisions of command. Those officers are being trained in an officer training academy in Baghdad and in the south as part of a NATO training organisation. I am confident that the United Kingdom will be willing to take and train officers should that be necessary.

Veterans

John Robertson: What steps his Department is taking to support veterans of the armed forces.

Ivor Caplin: The Ministry of Defence works across Government, with international partners and with the ex-service and voluntary organisations to improve continually the support available to UK veterans. One of the ways in which we do that is to ensure that the transition from service to civilian life is as successful as possible. Our statistics show that 95 per cent. of service leavers who undertake resettlement training find employment within six months of leaving the armed forces.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that many of our soldiers join up at the age of 16 or 17 and therefore miss out on gaining the further or higher education qualifications that many hon. Members might have. Does he agree that our servicemen and women should receive special help to ensure that they have the necessary educational qualifications to meet their needs when they leave the services?

Ivor Caplin: We have a very active programme of education and training that continues throughout the military careers of our servicemen and women. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence is the largest training organisation in the United Kingdom. Although procedures existed in our armed forces to help early service leavers to return to civilian life, they were often locally determined and there was no consistent tri-service policy. I introduced the new tri-service early leavers policy last April, which ensures that all early service leavers now receive a mandatory brief and interview. In short, we now know that, for the first time, we are giving everyone leaving the services structured help to resettle into civilian life. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is an important step forward.

Humfrey Malins: My constituent, Paul Connolly, from Woking is a veteran of the first Gulf war. Since then, he has been permanently ill with kidney problems, and on dialysis. Will the Minister undertake to have another look at this case? Mr. Connolly was a civilian who was seconded to the military although, to all intents and purposes, he was part of the military. He has received no benefits whatever since the war, and he is still very ill.

Ivor Caplin: I cannot comment on the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but if he cares to write to me, I shall certainly look at the matter. In regard to sickness relating to the first Gulf war, the Gulf veterans assessment programme at St. Thomas's hospital is available to any veteran from that or the more recent conflict who feels that they may be unwell.

Linda Gilroy: I understand that there is to be a veterans summit. Will my hon. Friend tell us what will be involved, as I am sure that it would be of interest to many people in the city of Plymouth?

Ivor Caplin: The international summit of Ministers with responsibility for veterans is taking place today and tomorrow at the Royal hospital, Chelsea. This is the first such event, and it has brought together Ministers from the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the event this morning, and I expect a formal communiqué to be issued tomorrow afternoon. I shall ensure that copies are sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and placed in the Library of the House.

Angus Robertson: More than 1,000 RAF personnel in Scotland—most of them in my constituency—are set either to be relocated or to become veterans through redundancy. What plans do the Government have to support these soon-to-be veterans in the communities in which they live?

Ivor Caplin: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion. What I can say is that we will treat all those veterans in the same way as we treat current veterans.

Chris Bryant: Using the word "veteran" makes it sound as though we are talking about elderly people, but the vast majority of those who leave our armed services are in their 30s or 40s. They can face difficulties not only in finding their first job but in finding a fruitful career for the following 20 to 25 years. What plans are there to ensure that they have support not only when they first leave the services but throughout the rest of their adult working lives?

Ivor Caplin: We employ a number of advisers to provide through-life support to people, both in their military life and when they go back into civilian life. The employment consultancy advice available through the resettlement programme is considered to be one of the best available to employees anywhere in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, statistics show that about 95 per cent. of service leavers will undertake resettlement training and find good employment within six months of leaving our forces.

Mike Hancock: Is the Minister planning any new initiatives on, or is he prepared to look again at the problems associated with, the health of the nuclear test veterans and their families? Sadly, many of the veterans have now died, but many of their families, especially their children, are still suffering the consequences and those children claim that their illnesses were a direct result of their contamination during the nuclear tests in the 1950s.

Ivor Caplin: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on this subject in which I laid out the Ministry's current position in relation to nuclear test veterans, including the apology that I have made on the Ministry's behalf to the Maddison family and the fact that we would challenge, through judicial review, the coroner's findings.

Small Businesses

Anne Campbell: What steps he is taking to ensure that his Department's research and development budget is used to help small businesses.

Adam Ingram: The majority of defence procurement, both manufacture and research and development, is both large-scale and complex. Consequently, it lends itself more to prime contracting through large defence industry companies or research organisations. Therefore, small and medium-sized enterprises are mainly involved in subcontract work.
	The Ministry of Defence provides advice and guidance to all companies interested in becoming defence suppliers, either as prime contractor or subcontractors. For example, the Department provides a helpdesk facility, seminars and web portals, which SMEs can access for information about opportunities to work with the Ministry of Defence.
	The Ministry of Defence is also a participant in the small business research initiative, a cross-departmental initiative, which is designed specifically to increase the success of smaller firms in obtaining contracts from Government bodies to conduct research and development.

Anne Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that I have a number of small firms in my constituency that would benefit enormously from Government research contracts that do so much to help to secure stable funding, which is important in early-stage business, and which the US seems better at doing than the UK. Can my right hon. Friend therefore tell me how close he is to reaching the targets set by the small business research initiative for giving Government contracts to small business?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend asks an important and interesting question. The issue does not just affect her constituency, although I would guess that her constituency has quite a concentration of such companies, because those companies are spread throughout the United Kingdom. Under the small business research initiative, Departments were committed to a target of purchasing at least 2.5 per cent. of their R and D from SMEs by 2004–05. The Ministry of Defence's estimate is that, currently, some 5 per cent. by value of the MOD's research budget is taken by SMEs. That is a good start, but there is more to be done.

Nicholas Winterton: In supporting the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) in her question, would not the Minister accept that the development of the Nimrod MRA4 at BAE Systems, Woodford, is hugely beneficial to a large number of smaller businesses that supply BAE Systems? Could he give me an update on when the Government are to order those sophisticated aircraft, which would not only guarantee jobs at BAE Systems, Woodford, but would be of huge assistance to a large number of smaller businesses that supply the aerospace and defence industries?

Adam Ingram: I agree with the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as I made clear in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). In terms of the final decision, the price must be right, and tough negotiations with the company are taking place. The hon. Gentleman might have noticed that, last Friday, I announced that the MRA4 will be based at Kinloss, although that was not well received by the MP for that area at the time.

Afghanistan

Mohammad Sarwar: What assistance his Department is providing to counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan.

Adam Ingram: The deployment of British forces to Afghanistan as part of the international security assistance force helps to create a more secure environment, enabling the Afghan Government to take the lead in countering narcotics activities. That contributes to a wider interdepartmental approach co-ordinated by the Afghan drugs interdepartmental delivery unit, involving the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, Customs and Excise, the MOD and the Home Office.

Mohammad Sarwar: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that there has been a huge increase in heroin production since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan? Powerful warlords and drugs lords are profiting from the massive increase in poppy production. Following the tragic murder of Steven McQueen last Monday, will he consider further steps to tackle effectively poppy eradication?

Adam Ingram: I too pay tribute to Steven McQueen, who was involved in the important "alternative livelihoods" initiative to tackle the heroin trade in Afghanistan. His was a tragic death in tragic circumstances, which shows the importance of the work we are doing there.
	As my hon. Friend says, there has been a significant increase in total production in terms of hectarage and so on, but the yield does not match that. Obviously we must tackle the problem, but that cannot be done by means of only one mechanism. It cannot be done solely through military means or crop eradication. There must be a set of arrangements including alternative livelihoods, eradication strategies and, of course, working with the Afghan authorities to put the necessary resources on the ground. All that work is being done on an interdepartmental basis in the United Kingdom.

Nigel Evans: There has indeed been a huge increase in the availability of class A drugs from Afghanistan, but were it not for our armed forces the supply would be even greater. We congratulate them on the work that they are doing.
	The Minister said earlier that education was important, and that the armed forces were the largest training provider in the country. Could they not also play a pivotal role in Afghanistan in ensuring that young people there are properly trained and have a proper future, so that they are not dragged into drug cultivation?

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the efforts that have been made to date, in very difficult circumstances. We have already mentioned one death that took place last week, although it did not involve a member of the armed forces.
	The Department for International Development is taking the lead in this, and it must look at a range of opportunities. Growing the economy is vital, and alternative livelihoods for both farmers and young people is crucial. It will all take time, but that is not for want of effort and attention on the Government's part. We will continue to exert pressure and devote effort to achieving what we can by working with the Afghan authorities.

David Cairns: No one could possibly doubt the tremendous effort that British and American troops are putting into the reconstruction of Afghanistan. We know of the increased supply of heroin on Britain's streets, but is not the other side of the equation the massive profits of the industry that support narco-terrorist activity, which represents the single biggest danger to the future of a stable, democratic Afghanistan? That, at least, is the warning from President Karzai. Is it not time we realised that along with the carrot of alternative livelihoods—which we are absolutely right to offer—must go the stick of destruction, in the form of a beefed-up crop eradication strategy?

Adam Ingram: I have said as much. That is indeed an important part of the equation. A key part, however, is the building of criminal justice structures so that those at the top of the network can be brought to justice. That mechanism is not yet in place because of all the dangers involved, but we want to train people—together with other allied nations—to ensure that we have all those structures: a civil society that is opposed to drugs in Afghanistan, a criminal justice system to bring people to justice, and a mechanism whereby they can be brought to justice. At the same time we must build the economy and help with alternative livelihoods, and there must also be a proper eradication strategy.

Keith Simpson: May I say how much Conservative Members support the work of not just our military personnel but the intelligence services in the important but dangerous war out in Afghanistan?
	I understand that there are about 500 production sites in Afghanistan, any 50 of which will operate at any one time. The Minister rightly said that there were a number of ways of trying to eradicate that activity—political, economic and military, among others—but will he tell us whether the Government have considered precision aerial interdiction to destroy the sites?

Adam Ingram: Every aspect is examined, but anything new must be done with the support of the Afghan authorities. We will not hold back in doing what we believe to be absolutely necessary, because this is a poisonous trade. There are inherent dangers in not tackling this problem; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) alluded to the narco-terrorist state developing on the back of this trade. All means have to examined, but whether they have efficacy and legitimacy is another issue.

Eurofighter Typhoon

Vincent Cable: What his plans are for the third tranche of the Eurofighter project.

Geoff Hoon: Under the four-nation memorandums of understanding, a decision regarding the third tranche of Eurofighter Typhoon is not required before 2007. Discussions with partners and the aerospace industry about tranche 3 will therefore continue.

Vincent Cable: Since the Government appear to be committed to pressing ahead with ordering 80 aircraft under that tranche, can the Secretary of State say how many UK pilots will be fully trained and available to fly them?

Geoff Hoon: There will be enough UK pilots, but I have to say that every time the hon. Gentleman speaks on defence, he demonstrates his leadership of the Liberal Democrats' pacifist tendency. That tendency is confirmed by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who has made it clear that he would scrap the third tranche of Typhoon, and by the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman in the House of Lords, who said that he would scrap the two carriers. Yet almost every week in this Chamber, Liberal Democrats representing constituencies such as Yeovil, Portsmouth, South and North Devon queue up to say that more money should be spent on defence. It is about time that the Liberal Democrats made their policy clear.

Gordon Prentice: But it is worse than that, because the Liberal Democrats would scrap not just tranche 3 but tranche 2, which would cost—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Crispin Blunt: Is the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) not correct in saying that unless something has happened to the normal ratio of pilots to aircraft, under its current plan the Royal Air Force will not have sufficient pilots if it acquires tranche 3 of Eurofighter? Is that not a consequence of the £500 million a year cuts that Labour made on entering office in 1998, and is it not a little rich of the Secretary of State to criticise the previous Conservative Government's defence expenditure, given that, on entering office, Labour promptly cut such expenditure?

Geoff Hoon: Since the hon. Gentleman had some responsibility for the series of defence cuts made by previous Conservative Governments, such comments do not come well from him. We have succeeded in raising the defence budget year on year since I have been in post, and it is very important that such expenditure continues to rise. However, those increases would be seriously threatened in the unlikely event of the Conservatives winning government.

Arms Sales

Si�n Simon: What steps the Department takes to promote British arms sales overseas.

Adam Ingram: The Ministry of Defence provides a high standard of support to legitimate defence exports. In recent years, it has helped the UK defence industry to win orders worth, on average, some 5 billion annually. Major achievements last year included the contract forthe sale of Hawk aircraft to India and last month, the US101a version of the well-established AgustaWestland EH101won the competition to replace the current US presidential helicopters. The defence ministerial team has played an important part in helping the industry to win these orders.

Si�n Simon: I thank the Minister for his answer and the Department for its support for British manufacturing, which can surely use all the help that it can get. However, a prerequisite of securing export orders is often that the contract first be given by the MODa point that is particularly true in respect of larger contracts involving newer products. I ask the Minister to reassure my constituents and me thatjust as the French and the Americans always strive to buyhome-grown productswherever possible, the MOD will buy British products rather than foreign ones, because buying British is also the way to sell overseas.

Adam Ingram: I did cite two very good examples of the great benefits of such major procurements, not just in terms of what the companies in question have delivered for our armed forces, but of our ability then to market those products internationally. The same point applies to the Typhoon, although I know that other parties oppose our efforts in that regard. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats, who are probably the prime opponents, totally oppose such efforts to sell British industry abroad. My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and we are putting every effort into ensuring that we continue to get the best equipment on time, and for the best value. We believe that British industry has the capacity to do that, and we will assist it in selling those products on.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister will be aware that there has been an adverse reaction in America to the lifting of the arms embargo on China. The Americans are strengthening their buy America policy, which is having an alarming effect on the aerospace industry in this country. Many companies in my constituency are concerned that, without their American orders, they cannot continue as viable companies. Can the Government do anything to pressure America to adopt a fair policy on orders from the UK?

Adam Ingram: The embargo has not been lifted. There is a wide-ranging debate about that matter and all the issues must be fully taken into account. On access to the US market, I pointed out in my first answer that we have been successful in respect of the American EH101 equivalent helicopter. That provides one good example and we are also very much involved in the future joint strike fighter project. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that major paybacks will come from that, not just in respect of manufacture, but in the potential for research and development.

Defence Procurement Agency

Dave Watts: What reforms the Department is making through the Defence Procurement Agency to improve the performance of industry in delivering equipment to the armed forces.

Adam Ingram: The Department has initiated several reform processes to improve the performance of industry in delivering equipment to the armed forces. These comprise a programme of measures to apply the principles of smart acquisition more effectively, a programme of key supplier management and the more effective contracting initiative to improve the management of risk.

Dave Watts: I congratulate the Minister on the efficiencies that his Department has already made, but does he agree that the Treasury Wood report seemed to suggest that some European countries have found ways to ensure that they get more contracts out to their own companies? Will he see what he can do to change his procurement policies to ensure that British companies are given the same fair treatment?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend was right to use the phrase some European countries, because it is not standard practice across the EU. The European Defence Agency was set up primarily to look at what is happening across the board on research and development, to examine procurement structures and how the various regulations and protocols apply and to ensure that there is a level playing field across Europe. That will take some time, but we have embarked on implementing all that. The UK has a competitive market, which benefits us greatly because it sharpens our industries in being the best at getting equipment delivered on time and on cost. We can then market our products to friendly and allied Governments. A major change is taking place in this sector and I believe that, over time, we will see a level playing field develop throughout Europe.

Michael Jack: Can the Minister confirm that the improvements in procurement procedures in connection with tranche 2 of the Eurofighter give him confidence that BAE Systems and other partners will be able to make a strong case to his Department for confirming tranche 3? In that context, will he also confirm that the public expenditure totals for 2007 in the pre-Budget report contain an element of funding to finance tranche 3 should a yes decision be made?

Adam Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman is active in promoting the cause of that aircraft, but in defence we have to work across the whole breadth of procurement streams. My right hon. Friend the Secretary State explained exactly where we stand on tranche 3. The negotiations will continue and a decision is not due, if my memory serves me correctly, until 2007. We will continue to discuss and negotiate with the company accordingly.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend would agree that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulty in accessing many defence projects. Will he join me in congratulating Northern Defence Industries on its work to allow SMEs in the   north-east to access defence contracts? What encouragement can he give to organisations such as NDI to ensure that small companies that have not had work in the defence sector in the past can in the future?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I have met Northern Defence Industries in the past three weeks and was impressed by the commitment of some of the companies to investing in research and development that will place them well within the supply chain for larger companies, as is required. We need to   engage more with companies, but companies themselves, through their associations, also have a role to play and need to be clear about what they seek to achieve. I pay tribute to NDI for its clear strategy.
	There are only so many procurement decisions to take at any point in time. We have to maintain the vibrancy of SMEs, because there are key capabilities among them. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of companies as well as of talking to their associations and I think that they are well placed. We have a robust manufacturing and research and technology base in this country. If it were not for defence procurement, much of that would not exist.

Gerald Howarth: Is it not the case that nothing betrays the failure of the much-vaunted smart procurement policy so much as the decision to bail out Swan Hunter for the relatively straightforward off-the-shelf design for the landing ships dock, which has suffered a staggering 60 per cent. cost overrun, described by the procurement Minister in the other place as value for money for the British taxpayer? Why were Ministers not frank with this House and admit that that decision amounted to financial assistance to a yard that had failed to honour its contract and a substantial pre-election bung to a company in Labour's north-east heartland? It will make no difference because on 6 May the Minister and I shall be swapping places.

Adam Ingram: Dread the day for British industry. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look back at the procurement decisions taken when his party was in Government and the delays and problems associated with them. Many of the problems are still being visited on the Ministry of Defence, which is why we have had to radicalise and rationalise our strategies to gain a better focus and ensure that we get better value for money.
	On Swan Hunter, I can only guess from what the hon. Gentleman said, which will perhaps be echoed across the Conservative Benches, that he wanted the yard to close down.

Iraq

Eric Joyce: What support his Department is offering to the Iraqi Government.

Geoff Hoon: The Ministry of Defence is supporting the Iraqi Interim Government in providing security in Iraq, as mandated by United Nations Security Council resolution 1546. Our priority is to enable Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. British military personnel and Ministry of Defence civil servants work closely with the Iraqi Interim Government and coalition partners to train capable and effective Iraqi security forces, properly equipped to deal with counter-insurgency. In Multi-National Division (South-East), we also assist the Iraqi Interim Government by providing framework security and engaging in counter-insurgency operations that currently the Iraqi security forces are not able to undertake on their own.

Eric Joyce: How many Iraqi personnel have been trained up by United Kingdom and coalition force personnel?

Geoff Hoon: Something in the order of 136,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have been trained. That includes 57,000 police, 15,000 border guards, 12,000 members of the regular army and around 38,000 members of the national guard. Our forces are in Iraq only with the consent and agreement of the Iraqi Interim Government and they will be there only so long as it is necessaryso long as there is a job to doand not a day longer.

Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State will know that several thousand reservists and territorials will head for Iraq in the next few weeks. In a helpful briefing, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), made it clear that the replacement for statutory instrument 1997/309, which deals with conditions of service out there in Iraq, is ready and drafted, containing many things that the reserve forces want. Will it be tabled before they go?

Geoff Hoon: The order will be tabled shortly. I take this opportunityI know that the hon. Gentleman will join meto congratulate our reservists on their tremendous work. It is a voluntary mobilisation and we are enormously indebted to them for their willingness to take on hugely difficult and demanding tasks.

Harry Barnes: Have the Iraqi Government asked for any extra military help from Britain following the withdrawal of Dutch troops to the west of Basra? If there has been such a request, what has been our response?

Geoff Hoon: We are responsible, obviously, for leading coalition forces in MND(SE). I have paid tribute to the contribution of Dutch troops over a long period. We look forward to the arrival in MND(SE) of Australian forces. In the meantime, we shall continue to provide security throughout the southern area, which we are responsible for and are pleased to be able to undertake.

Hugh Robertson: Earlier, the Secretary of State drew the House's attention to the number of foreign fighters operating in Iraq, many of whom get there across the border with Syria. What practical measures are being taken to seal that border where possiblefor example, with electronic surveillanceand how have such measures been affected by recent events in Damascus?

Geoff Hoon: Certainly, a determined effort is being made. It is a priority to train border guards and, as I said, some 15,000 have been trained so far. The borders are long and porous, given the geography and terrain. We look for greater co-operation from Syria because it is important that it plays its part in refusing access to Iraq across its border. Nevertheless, a continuing effort will be made to train appropriate personnel on the Iraqi side of the border to ensure that foreign fighters cannot gain access to that country.

Veterans

David Wright: What plans his Department has further to support veterans.

Ivor Caplin: We have a comprehensive programme of recognition and support for veterans that we keep under regular review. At the present time, a significant number of events are being planned to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war. We have produced the highly successful veterans badge, which we are issuing to all veterans of the first and second world warsor, where appropriate, their dependantsto recognise their sacrifices during those wars and express our recognition of the debt that we owe them. We have also produced a number of commemorative booklets marking certain key events in the second world war, all of which are available in the Library, or online at www.mod.uk/aboutus/history.

David Wright: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating and thanking people such as Albert Colley, who works for the Royal British Legion in Telford and Dennis Edwards, who works for SSAFAthe Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Associationin Telford for the tremendous work that they and others do for veterans throughout the country? They work particularly hard for war widows, as well as veterans. What more will the Government do to support war widows?

Ivor Caplin: I congratulate my hon. Friend's British Legion and SSAFA branches for their work in his local community and the work that the organisations do throughout the United Kingdom. He may recall that, during the passage of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004, I undertook to reconsider war widows. I can confirm to the House today that pre-1973 war widows will benefit from an immediate pension enhancement of 104 a year over and above inflation. That will become effective in April and the total cost to the Ministry of Defence will be 4 million a year. I hope that the House agrees that that is a proper way of recognising the role of those widows in our veteran society.

Julian Lewis: As the Minister is about to become a sort of Ministry of Defence veteran, may I wish him well? Surely it is most important for veterans that we recognise their achievements. I have taken the opportunity to look at the documents relating to the non-award of the Arctic star immediately after the second world war. From looking at those documents, it seems that it was never considered whether a separate star should be awarded. Will he look again at the matter because the badge that has been awarded does not fulfil the need and the problem of clashing with Buckingham palace should not arise as the issue was never seriously considered in the first place?

Ivor Caplin: The hon. Gentleman started by talking about recognition and the fact that we are properly recognising the Arctic convoys with the emblem that has been announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a proper and effective way forward.

Brian Jenkins: When my hon. Friend has a chance during the next two days to talk to other Ministers concerned with veterans' issues, will he, perhaps over coffee, talk to Ministers from the United States, Canada and Australia, and ask how their Governments dealt with the nuclear test veterans to find whether there are any lessons to be learned by our Government?

Ivor Caplin: I assure my hon. Friend that we will be discussing a wide range of issues, including Gulf war illnesses and other matters to which he referred.

Richard Ottaway: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), can the Minister explain why a medal was given five years ago for the Suez campaign, but not for the Arctic convoys?

Ivor Caplin: The Suez campaign was never considered by the appropriate committee. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the decision to award the Suez medal was taken in 2003, just two years ago, by this Government.

Malawi

Ann McKechin: What support the Department is offering to de-mining efforts in Malawi.

Adam Ingram: Sub-Saharan Africa is the most heavily mined region in the world. I recently had the pleasure of opening the UK-funded international mine action training centre in Kenya. It is the first training centre of its kind in the region and, as an internationally recognised centre of excellence, it provides high-quality training, advice and expertise on all aspects of humanitarian de-mining for military de-miners, NGOs and other organisations operating in a mine-affected region, and is open to all, including Malawi.

Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and welcome the efforts made by his Department to assist the many victims of mines throughout sub-Saharan Africa. He will be aware that there are also many victims in countries such as Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and north Uganda. Will his Department be able to provide assistance in those areas as they move from conflict to peace?

Adam Ingram: We are dealing with two separate subjects. In-country de-mining initiatives are the responsibility of the Department for International Development. The centre that I opened in Kenya is an internationally recognised major resource for Africa to train people in de-mining activities and it is open to all countries that wish to participate. Already, applications have come from neighbouring states, which have some of the most heavily mined areas. All the other support mechanisms are the responsibility of the DFID.

Salisbury Plain

Paul Flynn: How much income was derived from the rent of military land on Salisbury plain in each of the past five years.

Ivor Caplin: Income received as rent for agricultural land on the Salisbury plain training estate over each of the past five financial years is as follows: 978,000 for 200001; 1,039,000 for 200102; 1,046,000 for 200203; 1,069,000 for 200304; and 1,079,000 for 200405.

Paul Flynn: The latest figure works out at a mere 43 per hectare, which is a ludicrously low rent compared with that charged by the local authority of four times that amountand that is a subsidised rent. It is decreasingly likely that the Army will use that rented land, because the nature of modern warfare means training for a peacekeeping role, rather than for gaining territory. Should not a fair market rent be charged on behalf of the taxpayer, or the land sold to the farmers?

Ivor Caplin: I disagree with my hon. Friend. The simple fact is that Salisbury plain is an important training environment for the British Army and will continue to be so.

Afghanistan

Ross Cranston: What progress was made on issues relating to Afghanistan at the recent NATO summit in Nice.

Adam Ingram: Afghanistan is NATO's principal operational priority. Excellent progress was made at Nice regarding the continuing expansion of the NATO-led international security assistance force, as well as moves towards enhanced co-operation and co-ordination with the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom. That underscores NATO's long-term commitment to helping Afghanistan build a stable, prosperous and democratic future.

Ross Cranston: In relation to Question 4, my right hon. Friend heard from both sides of the House that it is vital that the UK and NATO play an essential part in stabilising Afghanistan. The Department is good at responding to correspondence, but it is disturbing that the Afghanistan entry on the MOD website has not been updated since 2002. Can he give an absolute assurance that the Department fully supports stages 2 and 3 of the international security assistance force expansion and can he give some specific details?

Adam Ingram: I am sorry that the website has not been updated and I shall look into that. I confirm that we are very supportive of stage 2 expansion and are providing significant assistance. We plan to assist a Lithuanian reconnaissance mission to Chaghcharan and our Harriers are also available to support NATO in the west. We have no further plans to participate in stage 2, because our commitments lie in the north, but our aspiration is to move the focus of UK forces from the north to the south and to play a key role in ISAF stage 3. Other NATO allies plan to take over our provincial reconstruction teams in the north. There is a coherent NATO and ISAF programme as we begin to increase our presence across wider regions of Afghanistan.

Aircraft Carriers

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet BAE Systems plc to discuss the aircraft carrier project.

Geoff Hoon: I hold regular meetings with a number of defence companies, including BAE Systems, to discuss a variety of defence procurement projects.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State share our concern that the appointment of Kellogg, Brown and Root as systems integrator will lead to confusion and uncertainty at BAE Systems and Thales? Does he understand why staff at BAE in particular are so angry and disillusioned and can he confirm to the House that delivery of the first carrier will still take place in 2012? That will be two years before the joint strike fighter becomes available. Can he also confirm that there will be no reduction in the size and tonnage of the two carriers?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is relying on somewhat out-of-date press cuttings. If he had read his newspaper clippings a little more contemporaneously he would have discovered that there is actually an agreement on the way ahead as far as the alliance is concerned and that all parties are content with the arrangements that have been agreed. On the in-service date of the carriers and the joint combat aircraft, we anticipate receiving the first JCA some time around 2011. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, the in-service date for the first carrier is 2012. We anticipate a long period of training and trials in preparation for the in-service date for both capabilities operating together. I see no difficulty about the time scale that we have set out.

Nick Brown: There is a substantial amount of shipbuilding work in the aircraft carrier programme and the shipyard workers of Tyneside hope to do some of it. Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that it was the last Conservative Government who closed Swan Hunter shipyard? The yard is back working on projects for the Ministry of Defence, so will he assure the House that Swan Hunter is a valued supplier of work to the MOD and will he condemn absolutely the hate campaign that is being run from the Opposition Benches against Swan Hunter and the shipyard workers of Tyneside?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It would appear that the Conservatives are at least being consistent in their attitude not only to Swan Hunter but to British manufacturing generally. What is important is that we continue to have constructive conversations on the future of Swan Hunter and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the efforts that he has made to secure work for that yard.

Andrew Robathan: May I ask the Secretary of State about some more up-to-date comments? Does he agree with Mike Turner, the chief executive officer of BAE Systems, who said that ship designs will be scaled down? Or does he agree with Chris Geoghegan, the BAE man in charge of the carrier programme, who said:
	On the current model, there is a gap between the design they want and the budget available . . . The design will have to be rethought this summer, making it virtually impossible to meet the in-service date of 2012.
	What is the alternative plan if the US scraps the jump-jet version of the joint strike fighter? Where will the extra billion pounds or so come from, as everybody now agrees that the 2.9 billion set aside for the carrier programme is woefully inadequate?

Geoff Hoon: There go the Conservatives again. Yet again, they are talking down British defence, British manufacturing industry and the future of our armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise a major company's negotiating ploy, he does not deserve to be in government.

Stephen Hepburn: The Secretary of State will be aware that the average age of a skilled worker on the Tyne is 50. As the aircraft carrier programme is not due to start for some time yet, those skills could be lost to UK industry, with the great threat that UK ships could be built by imported foreign labour. Will my right hon. Friend make every effort to bring some work forward in the short term, whether it is refurbishment or refitanything to ensure that we keep British jobs in British yards to build British ships?

Geoff Hoon: We have made it absolutely clear that British warships will be built in British yards. An enormous amount of work is in prospect for British yards in the excellent programme of warship construction that we have set out. I shall continue to discuss with my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Friends the future of particular British yards.

Trident Replacement

Jeremy Corbyn: When he expects to announce plans for the replacement of Trident submarines.

Geoff Hoon: The decision on whether or not to replace Trident is likely to be required during the next Parliament.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, which is an enormous surprise. Will he take this opportunity to say that Britain will be the first of the five declared nuclear powers to declare its full adherence to the 1970 non-proliferation treaty, that Trident will not be replaced when it reaches the end of its life and that we will become the first permanent member of the Security Council voluntarily to give up our nuclear weapons, as we are bound to do under the terms of the treaty, signed 35 years ago?

Geoff Hoon: The non-proliferation treaty does not prevent existing member states from retaining or indeed replacing their existing nuclear capability, so I hope that my hon. Friend will study the terms of the treaty more closely in future.

Commission for Africa

Hilary Benn: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Commission for Africa.
	African poverty and stagnation is the greatest tragedy of our time.
	That is the conclusion of the Commission for Africa's report, which was published on 11 March. Seventeen commissioners appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Ministerthe majority of whom are Africansspent the last year assessing evidence and reaching out to the continent of Africa. We talked and listened to ordinary Africans, politicians, leaders of regional institutions, business people, trade unionists, academics and religious and civil leaders. We were supported by an outstanding secretariat, to which I pay tribute, as I also do to many hon. Members on both sides of the House who took such an interest in the commission's work. The report is the richer for all those contributions.
	We live in a world of increasing prosperity, in which more people around the world share every year, but one continentAfricahas been left behind. This year, 4 million African children will die before their fifth birthday. Millions more who survive will not go to school and will grow up to lead lives of abject poverty and frequent hunger. As the Prime Minister said on Friday, that is the fundamental moral challenge of our generation.
	The report is painfully honest. It tells the truth about the corrosive effects of corruption and conflict in Africa. It tells the truth about the things that Africa needs to change. It is equally honest about the past broken promises of rich countries and about the things that we must now do. It also recognises, however, that there are signs of hope. There is more democracy in Africa than before. More Governments are trying to do the right thing by their people. There are fewer conflicts. In some countries, economies are now growing strongly for the first time in years, and poor people are being lifted out of poverty. And best of all, Africans are taking responsibility for Africa, with the African Union and the New Partnership for Africa's DevelopmentNEPADhaving set out the continent's vision of its own future.
	The report is clear that more ad hoc initiatives are not the answer. It sets out a comprehensive plan of action for implementation by Africa and by the rest of the world. It shows that Africa can absorb much more aid and can put it to good use to rebuild basic health care and education, to help countries scrap user fees that stop poor children going to school or poor families getting medical care, to assist in the fight against HIV and AIDS, and to reverse the decline in investment in water and sanitation. Aid to Africa should be doubled and made more reliable. The international finance facility should be launched immediately. For poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa, which need it, there should be 100 per cent. debt service cancellation as soon as possible.
	The future of Africa lies, rightly, in the hands of its people and Governments. While Africa acts, as it must, to improve governance and tackle corruption, rich countries need to stop holding back Africa. We must make the international trade system fairer and end the damage that export subsidies are doing, while Africa increases its own capacity to trade. To do that, and to increase economic growth, Africa needs major investment in infrastructure. Leaving it to the private sector alone has not worked, so the report recommends a new $10 billion a year infrastructure fund, alongside proposals to improve the investment climate in Africa and to boost agriculture.
	Finally, the report recommends support for the African Union's new leadership in peace and security and for Africa's increasingly important regional institutions, and it proposes a new monitoring mechanism to hold the world to account for implementing what the report tells us needs to be done.
	The Government are committed to playing their part in responding to the report. We have already set out a timetable to reach the United Nations 0.7 per cent. aid target, and we are leading the world with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposals on the international finance facility and on multilateral debt relief. We are on course to double aid to Africa by 2010, and we will need to do more to support good governance and tackle corruption.
	This is not a report, however, to the UK alone; it is a report to all of us. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is committed to putting the commission's recommendations before our G8 colleagues and to doing so with determination. To succeed, we will need to harness the energy of all those who share the report's vision.
	Most important of all, this report shows us that something can be done. It tells us how, and what it will cost. Wethis generationcan no longer claim that we did not know about the condition of Africa or what to do to help it to change its future. Our challenge now is to do it. If we fail to act, as Africans or as the rest of the world, those who will come after us will ask how it was that people who were so aware of the suffering and so capable of responding chose to look away. If, however, we do act, we will help to build a safer, more secure and more just world. The choice is ours, and it is by the decisions that we make that we will be judged.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and, after a busy and somewhat sleepless parliamentary week, the report of the Commission for Africa has given us all extensive reading over the weekend.
	We welcome the report. It is a quality document that provides a thorough, detailed and perceptive analysis of the problems that confront Africa and that inhibit economic growth and poverty reduction. I acknowledge the Prime Minister's initiative in establishing the commission and commend his fellow commissioners and the secretariat for their contribution to the end product.
	Although, in total, there are more people in Asia and south America who subsist on less than a dollar a day, only in Africa is poverty increasing and life expectancy falling. The continent suffers from disease, poor governance and conflict.This report has covered the ground comprehensively. Its analysis is excellent, but it risks being more of an academic work than a programme for action. Both sides of the House share the common objective of wanting to tackle global poverty. Both major parties would spend the same amount on international development. Our policies, in many respects, overlap, and that is how it should be. Inasmuch as we differ, it is about how we spend our money on poverty reduction, not about how much we spend on it.
	We can therefore endorse many of the commission's recommendations and share its objectives on issues such as trade reform, debt cancellation and setting up an advocacy fund. As an analysis, it gets very high marks indeed, but as a blueprint for the effective change and progress that we all want to see in Africa, it has some serious shortcomings. It describes and meticulously costs everything that we should do, but not so much what Africans should do. There is no implementation plan to show in comparable detail how the extra billions will be disbursed, how this disbursement will be monitored to ensure accountability and transparency, and what measures will ever be taken against errant Governments. The fundamental question I ask the Secretary of State, therefore, is: what mechanism will there be to monitor and secure the quality of governance that Africa so desperately needs?
	For such a lengthy and detailed report, the coverage given to the African Governments' own obligations to fulfil their side of the project is disappointingly thin. For example, the chapter on governance states that
	corruption is a systemic challenge facing many African leaders
	and that the process of fighting it will be assisted by increased transparency by African Governments, but it offers no methodology for achieving this. Instead, the blame for corruption is heaped on those who offer bribes, but not at all on those who solicit them.
	African Governments have had 30 or 40 years of independence to increase transparency. That is more than a generation and, indeed, longer than the life expectancy of many of their citizens. In the early years of independence, corruption might indeed have been fuelled from outside, but today it is almost exclusively home grown. It is characterised by a total indifference of the corrupt to the welfare of their fellow citizens.
	Reference is of course made to the NEPAD African peer review mechanism as a way of addressing the problems of governance and corruption, but the portents are not good. On 24 February, the second phase of the NEPAD review on Kenya was launched. It was formally welcomed by the Kenyan Government as the
	commencement of intensive work on a process central to Kenya's search for greater democracy and economic growth.
	The Kenyan Government said that they were
	aware that corruption could undermine
	their commitment to the process, but were
	working to stem the vice.
	That statement was made only 11 days after Kenya's anti-corruption chief, John Githongo, was forced out of his job and the country following threats to his life made by Ministers whose corruption he was investigating. Can we thus be confident that the peer review mechanism will bring the Kenyan Government to book and pressurise them to reform?
	According to the NEPAD secretariat, the peer review mechanism does not rate Governments according to a score card for governance, transparency or suitability for donor support. It says:
	It is a voluntary process based on self assessment.
	That would suggest that neither Kenya nor Uganda, which is also to embark on the process, will be subject to much peer pressure at all. Does the Secretary of State thus agree with what we have been saying for months: the entire project will work only if all participant countries subscribe to a collective commitment to govern well? If so, by what effective mechanism will the likes of Robert Mugabe be certain to reach the high standards of government we seek?
	A further disappointment is the report's recommendation that the majority of the funds to build or restore Africa's infrastructure should be channelled directly to Governments. Commissioner Anna Tibijuka made a telling comment in that respect when she described how the promise offered by Tanzania's independence was squandered after donor Governments spent a fortune on infrastructure projects that were either not completed because money was stolen, or wasted because they were irrelevant to the country's needs, such as a motorway that went from nowhere to nowhere. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State believe that the recommendation in our manifesto of channelling aid through non-governmental organisations and civic organisations, as well as Governments, would produce both greater accountability and the more cost-effective use of available funds? [Interruption.] To put it differently, if the Secretary of State believes that he is doing things well already, what will he do differently now that he has the benefit of the Commission for Africa report?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Front-Bench spokesman that I have encouraged Ministers to cut down their contributions during these statements. The hon. Gentleman has now spoken for longer than the Minister did, and he has gone beyond the five minutes that the Select Committee asked Opposition spokesmen to take.

Alan Duncan: I will therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker. I merely observe that the Secretary of State's statement was pretty thin.
	It is no good the Secretary of State saying that the choice is ours, because the choice is also theirs: we need to be reassured that African Governments will properly join us in creating a better future for their people, because otherwise this will be another opportunity missedalthough it is, by any measure, the best opportunity that we are ever likely to have.

Hilary Benn: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the report, its analysis and its recommendations, although he somewhat undid what he said at the beginning of his remarks with what came subsequently.
	The hon. Gentleman raised several substantive issues. He asked how the increased aid will be distributed. The answer is that it is for each country that raises additional aid to ensure that it is used for the purpose for which it is intended. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we work through the British aid programmehis right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has described it as extremely effectiveusing a range of mechanisms, depending on our judgment of the country in which we are working. In some countries we work through Governments, who have the capacity and the ability to do the job on behalf of their people; in other countrieshe mentioned Zimbabwe, where we do not work with the Government because of the monumental failure of governance in that countrywe work through NGOs, in particular in our programme to fight HIV and AIDS.
	Governance and corruption are important issues, but we have to recognise that we have moved on from the colonial era and that we must be careful about the way in which we respond. As I think the hon. Gentleman meant to say, the primary responsibility rests with the Governments of Africa themselves. The best mechanism for holding them to account are the peoples of the countries of Africa

Julie Kirkbride: Come on.

Hilary Benn: It is all very well the hon. Lady saying that, but it is the peoples of Africa who will hold their Governments to account, who will ask questions about where the resources have gone and who will provide the pressure on Governments to crack down on corruption. All I would say about the African peer review mechanism is that time will tell whether it proves to be effective in holding the Governments of Africa to account. We should give it time to work and welcome the fact that the African Union created the APRM in the first place.
	To be honest, I do not think that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) meant this, but giving money to NGOs is not the way to deal with Africa's infrastructure problems. A large number of projects are awaiting effective funding; some have not happened because of problems experienced by the African Development Bank in disbursing the money, and others have not happened because they involve more than one country and it is difficult to secure agreements.
	Even though one cannot simply lay one map on top of the other, it is instructive to compare the transport infrastructure of India with that of Africa. India's transport infrastructure links the country, whereas Africa's was designed to take raw materials from the place where they were found to the coast and away from the continent as quickly as possible. That is why, for example, to get from one part of west Africa to another, business people often have to fly to Europe and back, because it is the quickest way. That is a good example of why Africa needs a more effective infrastructure.
	As for NGOs generally, the hon. Gentleman knows that in our rising aid programme the Government are increasing the financial support that we give to NGOs. We will work with a wide range of partners to ensure that Africa has the chance of a better future, but in the end it is for Africa to take the decisions and for us to do what we can to help.

Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his statement. The report of the Commission for Africa is to be welcomed. It contains many sensible recommendations, such as to invest in infrastructure and higher education, to tackle corruption in Africa and to remove trade barriers. It rightly highlights the importance of predictable aid flows, which applies not only to Africa but to the middle-income countries whose funds were cut by the Department when moneys were transferred to the reconstruction of Iraq.
	The report prompts several questions, which I hope the Secretary of State will be able to answer. Why have no target dates been set by which the rich countries should meet their 0.7 per cent. target? Why is climate changewidely recognised to be one of the greatest global threatshardly mentioned in the report? Why has so little progress been made in repatriating the funds salted away in UK banks by Abacha, for example? The right hon. Gentleman himself highlighted that issue in a speech to the money laundering conference three years ago.
	UK arms are being used in 10 of Africa's conflicts. Will the Secretary of State say what progress has been made since the Foreign Secretary announced in September last year that the Government would support an international arms trade treaty? Russia is to hold the G8 presidency in 2006. What agreement has the UK secured, or what assurances have the Government been given, that Russia will pick up the UK aid baton and run with it? What will the two high-calibre individuals appointed to review progress do if that baton is dropped in future years?
	The report has many strengths, but its weaknesses include the number of recommendations and the lack of specific timetables for implementation. A terrible burden now rests on the shoulders of the Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, as they must help to turn those aspirations into reality. If they fail, Africa's terrible cycle of poverty, sickness and death will never be broken.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the report. Taking each of his points in turn, he is absolutely right about predictabilitynot only do we need increased aid but it must be more reliable; otherwise African Governments cannot use it both to employ teachers, doctors and nurses and to buy AIDS drugs for the long term. On the 0.7 per cent. UN target, as he will be aware, an increasing number of countries have set timetables or target dates, including the UK Government, who did so last summer for the first time in history.
	On the repatriation of funds, we are in the process of ratifying the UN convention and we have strengthened our money-laundering legislation. We may well have to take further steps, as the Prime Minister made clear when responding to the report on Friday, and we must make sure that we are more effective in returning stolen funds. On the arms control treaty, we are currently looking at the range of measures that such a treaty should cover, and we will talk to other countries about that. On Russia's presidency of the G8 from 2006, in all honesty, the time to have a discussion with that country is when 2005 is out of the way and we know what progress we have been able to make. The Government have taken a responsibility upon themselves in establishing the commission, and I welcome the fact that Africa will be a priority of our G8 presidency this year. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the responsibility does not rest with the Government aloneit is a responsibility for the whole world.

Harry Cohen: Where is the link between arms sales and military action? Was my right hon. Friend astonished, like me, when on Any Questions? this Friday, our colleague the Minister for Children talked about Sierra Leone, where life expectancy is 34 and going down? We took military action there about four years ago, so why has there not been an improvement? Is not the failure to follow up   a failure by the Department for International Development?

Hilary Benn: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not accept that at all. Following our military action in Sierra Leonea country that has suffered more than any other from conflict and brutalitywe now have a 10-year memorandum of understanding with the Government there. We have provided practical support in the first instance to give the Royal Sierra Leonean armed forces and the police the capacity to provide internal security and to protect the borders, so that when UNAMSILthe United Nations Mission in Sierra Leoneeventually withdraws, the peace and stability that that country now enjoys can be maintained by the Government. There remains one instance of serious corruption, and we have repeatedly made it clear to the Sierra Leonean Government that unless they tackle the problem of corruption the people will not see the benefit of the peace and stability that the action of the British Government has helped to bring about.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have great respect for the Secretary of State, but I take issue with his comment that people in the poorest countries in the world can somehow influence bad Governments and deal with fraud, as they have low levels of literacy and poor communications. The donor countries will clearly have far more influence in tackling bad Governments and fraud. What sanctions will the Secretary of State impose if his idea of the people themselves influencing the situation does not work?

Hilary Benn: I do not accept the argument that the people of the countries of Africa do not have an important role to play. Kenya is a good example, because there was a change of Government there, partly because people wanted something different. They will be disappointed, however, by the lack of achievement so far. We must be careful not to talk down the growing willingness and capacity of civil society, independent institutions, trade unions, non-governmental organisations and others to play a part in calling Governments to account, as that is certainly part of the solution.
	We cannot, with great respect, expect to do the job as donors, however well intentioned we are. What we can do, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, is ensure that we use our aid money in a way that protects it and the purpose for which it is intended. That is why, in answer to the earlier question, I indicated that we use a range of methods, according to our own assessment of the capacity of the Government in question, to make sure that the increasing aid that we are giving goes to the people and for the purpose for which it was intended.

Win Griffiths: I have not had a chance to read the whole reportits size indicates the magnitude of the task. I want to pick up just one point. On page 385[Laughter]I have not got that far yet, but I happened to pick up this pointthe report states:
	In each recipient country, the government and donors should set up monitoring groups to assess the quality of donor assistance and co-ordination.
	I wholeheartedly agree with that. Sierra Leone has been mentioned. I know from my own visits there that the Chinese are very active and are trying to develop economic sub-regions to focus their aid. To what extent have our Government been involved with the Chinese in trying to develop a coherent programme for Sierra Leone, and how quickly does my right hon. Friend think that system can be instituted across Africa?

Hilary Benn: I know my hon. Friend takes an extremely close interest in events in Sierra Leone. When I visited about a year ago, one of the meetings in which I took part was all the donors meeting round the table, together with the Government, to do exactly what the Commission for Africa report recommends, in order to ensure that the donor effort in Sierra Leone works with the Government to try and achieve the changes in that desperately poor country, which has suffered so much, to help bring about sustainable long-term change. If people are to invest in Sierra Leone, which is what that country needs, it will need infrastructure, it will need to be able to convince people that it is right to invest, and as I said earlier, it will need to tackle the problem of corruption. In the conversations that I had with ordinary Sierra Leoneans during that visit, every person I spoke to raised the problem of corruption. It is a very important issue and it must be resolved by the Government of Sierra Leone.

Nicholas Winterton: I have a very high regard for the Secretary of State. He is doing an excellent job. Does he believe that what is required is fair trade for Africathat is, a change of policies in respect of trade, particularly in the European Unionand good governance? Leaders like Robert Mugabe are not an example of good governance. A large number of members of the Commonwealth are currently in the UK, taking part in the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seminar. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of meeting the representatives from Africa who, I believe, would be wonderful ambassadors to their political parties and Governments in respect of what the report, with which we all agree, is saying to the world?

Hilary Benn: I have not had that opportunity, although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is meeting that group on Wednesday. If there were any opportunity between now and then for me to meet them, I would very happy to make the time available, if that were possible to arrange.
	On the hon. Gentleman's main point, I agree with him. Zimbabwe stands as a very bad example of governance. The country has suffered grievously as a result of the failure of governance. On trade, of course the hon. Gentleman is right. The report makes a powerful case for why we must take steps to enable Africa to earn and to trade its way out of poverty. Every one of us knows that in the end, that will be the engine of economic development on the sub-continent, and therefore the means whereby people will be lifted out of poverty.

John McFall: I warmly welcome the report, especially the sections on good governance and corruption. The continent has seen economic growth and life expectancy largely go down rather than up over the past 30 years. One aspect that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned is civic society. I have friends in civic society in LusakaPete Henriot, a Jesuit, and his African colleagueswho are working to ensure that the Government listen to them and to hold the Government to account. Can my right hon. Friend suggest what initiative we can take, not to demand action for Africa, but to help foster good relations with civic society, so that the Governments of those countries can be held to account?

Hilary Benn: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of civic society. Effective governance requires that Governments are capable of doing the job and that the public and civil society organisations have expectations of the Government. In our development programme, we can be very proud of the fact that we are not only working a great deal with Governments to help them build their capacity, because in the end that is the only way that we will deal with the problem, but supporting a wide range of civil society organisations, because that will enable them to be a stronger voice on behalf of the people and communities whom they represent. They need to be able to say to Government, This is what you should be doing, and to ask, What has happened to the money? Why aren't you increasing expenditure on health and education?in other words, to say all the things that we take for granted in political debate in this country as the means by which Governments are held to account. Africa needs exactly the same.

Andrew MacKay: May I put it to the Secretary of State that his response to my hon.   Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr.   Duncan) was uncharacteristically disappointing, and give him an opportunity to put the record straight? Surely it is not colonialist or imperialist to criticise corruption in Kenya or abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe and surely our excellent high commissioner to Nairobi was absolutely correct robustly to point out that even the fresh Government in Kenya have been very weak on tackling corruption.

Hilary Benn: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said in reply to his hon. Friend. Of course it is not colonialist to criticise corruptionwe are at one on that. I was simply pointing out the implication that it is solely down to us to sort out the problem, becauselet us be truthfulit is not. That is why we have to recognise, first, that the steps that Africa itself is taking to tackle the problems of corruption and to promote good governance represent a change compared with the past; and secondly, that, as I said in response to two previous questions, the people who will ultimately do that will be the people of those countries themselves. We can help the process, but we cannot do it all. In the end, people will judge not only what we do but what happens in Africa, and that should be a matter for the people of those countries.

John McDonnell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent piece of workhis personal commitment has made it a very fruitful document, although it remains the start of this venture.
	On corruption, I wholeheartedly agree that the people of Africa themselves will ultimately resolve the matter. However, some elements of corruption have an international aspect, and the people of certain African states are not currently capable of dealing with that. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that as we start this work we should continue the discussion and dialogue on the reform of international institutions so as to hold out the prospect of establishing an international corruption court comparable to the International Criminal Court. That would signal to the kleptocrats who have robbed Africa, and denied their own people, of so many resources that one day they may be held to account.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about ensuring that there are internationally effective mechanisms to ensure that money that is stolen and flees the continent of Africa can be returned. That means, first, that each individual country must have in place effective mechanisms for doing that and, secondly, that we must ask ourselves collectively whether they actually work. Our money laundering legislation was not strong enough, so we strengthened it through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We need to continue to reflect on our experiences and, if the system does not work, to find more effective means of ensuring that such money is returned to where it belongs.

Tony Baldry: The report is excellent, but the test will be success at the G8. It behoves all of us who want the report to work to lobby colleagues in G8 countries. Will the Secretary of State help us with that by providing a bullet-point summary of what the Government hope to achieve at the G8? What does he hope that the minutes will show after the G8 conference? Could such a summary be provided in the G8 languages, because we must carry many others with us? The debate is not between ourselves but between us and the G8. We need to be able to lobby those countries, otherwise the Government and the commission could have put in all that work only for it to be a lost opportunity unless it translates into action in the summer.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is right about the big test being to turn the recommendations into action, especially by the G8 at the Gleneagles summit. In essence, the Government want, first, a doubling of aid to Africa. That means persuading countries, which may not be entirely convinced, that more aid will work effectively. The analysis in the report is clear that absorptive capacity exists and that properly used aid undoubtedly makes a difference.Secondly, we want to reach agreement on up to 100 per cent. multilateral debt relief for all the reasons that everybody understands, not least because debt relief provides predictable sources of finance. Thirdly, we want to create the political space to allow the trade talks in Hong Kong in December to open up trade on a freer and fairer basis so that Africa can trade and earn its way out of poverty.
	Those are the three big issues and the hon. Gentleman is right that we will all have to work hard to persuade other countries that may not currently be persuaded or those in which there is not much domestic pressure to do any of that. If there is no domestic pressure, we must create international pressure.

Derek Wyatt: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on their work. Will my right hon. Friend please pass on our thanks to Myles Wickstead and his team?
	It is salutary to remember that, in 1964, Africa's GDP was the same as China's. How things have changed 41 years on. One pan-African solution would be to use our three cultural battalionsthe British Council, the Open university and the BBC World Serviceto create an open primary school for Africa. Where is that on my right hon. Friend's priority list?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of appreciation to Myles Wickstead, Nick Stern and others who were responsible for writing the report. His point about the 1960s is interesting because at the time of the process of independence, the world was more worried about what would happen in Asia than what would happen in Africa. The past two generations have turned that concern on its head.
	My hon. Friend makes an interesting proposal about using the three institutions that he mentioned to increase opportunities for education. From my visit to Africa, I know how much those who have access to British Council facilities rely on them. However, the first priority is to ensure that the remaining 40 million or so children in Africa who do not go to primary school get into a classroom, while working on other ideas such as the one my hon. Friend suggested.

Angus Robertson: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, may I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, sentiments and the report, which urges a huge increase in aid donations? The Secretary of State will know that every United Kingdom Government have failed to commit 0.7 per cent. of gross national income since they signed up to the UN aid target in 1970. New House of Commons Library statistics show that more than half the UK underspend, on both past and planned development assistanceworth 42 billionis by the current Government. When will the UK finally fulfil its promises on aid that every single Government in the past 35 years have broken?

Hilary Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that this Government are the first ever to commit to a timetable for reaching the 0.7 per cent. target. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last summer, we have set a date of 2013. The hon. Gentleman looks surprised at that. One of the reasons that we are in the current position is that, for 18 years, the official development assistance GNI figure for Britain fell from 0.51 per cent., where the Labour Government left it in 1979, to the 0.26 per cent. that we inherited when we were elected in 1997. That is not the way to go.

Peter Pike: I greatly welcome the report, which underlines the commitment of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to Africa and international development. My right hon. Friend referred to this country's role in the G8. Does he accept that we need to pursue the same issues later in the year in our European Union presidency and emphasise our commitment, especially to education and health, the lack of which is currently so damaging in Africa?
	Furthermore, although we often emphasise the failing countries and the problems in Africa, the Secretary of State rightly said in his statement that there were some success stories and encouraging signs there. Does he agree that we need to do more to praise those examples of what some countries are doing?

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the European Union playing a part. That is why one of the issues that we are discussing is a new EU aid target, which will contribute to the pressure to be put on the G8 countries before Gleneagles. He also made an important point about examples of success: Africa is a many-splendoured continent. There are problems there, and we referred to some countries in that regard in earlier exchanges, but other countries are making remarkable progress. Mozambique is an example that illustrates the importance of peace and stability. Having been through a terrible conflict, it is now in the process of reducing poverty and has a number of donors backing the plan that its Government have drawn up to do that. That shows the potential that exists in Africa as well as the problems, and it is important that we focus on both.

Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State is to be congratulated. This is an excellent report, as was the report from the Brandt commission more than 30 years ago. Many people in this House and outside know the problems of Africa; they also know the solutions. Will the Secretary of State tell us what is new this time? How will things be different?

Hilary Benn: One thing that is new is that it is the Prime Minister of the country holding the presidency of the G8 who has established the commission, and who has chosen to take it upon himself and our presidency of the G8 to make Africa one of the two priorities. That was not the case at all with the Brandt commission. That is one difference. The second is that we now have an opportunity to do something about this at a time when a process of change is beginning in Africa; that was not the case when the Brandt report was produced. There is now also a greater willingness on the part of Africa to say, We are responsible for some of the problems of the continent, and this is what we are going to do about them. An example of that would be the recent events in Togo, where, following the death of the president, the constitution was subverted. With one voice, Africa said, No, you cannot do that, and the people involved rowed back from their position. That is a significant test of a commitment to good government. So there are signs of hope, and there is a greater willingness to recognise the scale of the problem. We have the capacity to act, and it can be done. That is different from the situation at the time of the Brandt report but, as I said in my statement, in the end, we shall be judged by what we do.

Michael Jabez Foster: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his comments, but I urge him not to accept that corruption, however bad, should limit the amount of our aid. May I remind him that Lord Soper once said that if corruption halved aid, that would be a reason to give twice as much?

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend. Kenya is a good example of that, because, while we are very critical of the failure to make progress on tackling corruption there, our aid is helping to make a real difference in that country. An example would be the newly elected Government's decision in 2002 to abolish primary school fees. We and other donors helped to pay for that. As a result, there are now a million more children in school in Kenya than there were before. So we need to get the balance right. We must ensure that our aid is provided in a way that protects it from corruption. At the same time, however, our high commissioner in Kenya has been absolutely fearless in pointing out the nature of the problem and the reasons that the Government there need to do something about it.

Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State upbraided me earlier when I suggested that democracy in Africa might put a brake on some of the corruption and poor governance there. I wonder whether he has gone back on that view in subsequent exchanges, and whether he recognises that there is a problem in that regard. Should not Her Majesty's Government be more actively engaged in these matters, so as to provide a better deal for Africa and for western taxpayers? Should not they positively incentivise those countries that are prepared to put in better Governments and to tackle corruption? That could result in a big difference between those countries that succeed, with western help, and those that do not. The citizens in the latter might then boot out their Government in a subsequent election.

Hilary Benn: I accept that point. The hon. Lady will no doubt be aware that, in the partnership agreements that we have with a number of African countries, we jointly draw up benchmarks to measure the progress that we expect to be made as a result of the partnership. They include benchmarks on governance, which arise out of commitments that the Governments themselves have set. I attach particular importance to that. I was not trying to make the point that we have no responsibility; I was trying to make it absolutely clear that, ultimately, I see the responsibility lying with those countries and their peoples. Of course we can support that process, however, and that is already reflected in our aid programme.

Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to improve the economic viability of African countries, it is important to try to improve the higher education infrastructure as well as basic health and education? Has he had time yet to consider the requests that I made a little while ago to examine the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, based in Cape Town, and the proposal to try to extend that to a network of mathematical institutes in other African countries? That has been promoted by some academics in my constituency.

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of higher education. That is one of the points that comes out strongly, as she will have seen, from the commission report. Last week, for example, I was able to announce a significant increase in funding for scientific research and development as part of DFID's research programme. As she will be aware, we have also revitalised the higher education links scheme, particularly to give a greater focus to science and technology and to the poorest countries in the world, including those in Africa. Certainly, I shall reflect further on her points about mathematics. It is important that we encourage, through a variety of means, the development of education at all levels, while being unapologetic, as we should be, about focusing the bulk of our aid programme on primary education, as that is the fundamental building block. If children are not going to school where they ought to be, it is difficult to improve their lives.

Alistair Burt: Some 20 years ago, my hon. FriendsI use the term deliberatelythe Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I made our first visit to South Africa. One of the friends we met there, Bridget Collins, now works in an AIDS clinic in Khayelitsha, a shanty town that was hardly in existence then but is now home for 1.5 million people, such is the extent of the problems with which the South African Government are dealing. If the focus of our discussion is the effectiveness of the international community voice, what reassurance can the Secretary of State give Bridget that the international consensus on the origins of AIDS is having an impact on the internal debate in South Africa, which has threatened to hold up the delivery of support to sufferers of that terrible illness?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. The international consensus is clear. We are absolutely firm in making the case for effective treatment. As he will be aware, policy has changed in South Africa because of the force of that argument, notwithstanding some people's views. There have been problems in relation to turning that change of policy into practical help on the ground, as he will be only too aware. We will continue to do what we have done up to now: to say that if we are to beat this disease, we must be honest and open about its causes and how people can protect themselves. We must make available the means of protection, including condoms; get treatment to people who need it, which is partly about the price of drugs and partly about having the health infrastructure, doctors and nurses to do the testing and to administer medicines and so on; and continue to do so resolutely. We can see from countries such as Uganda, which has managed to bring down the infection rate, that strong leadership, combined with all those other measures, really can make a difference. We need to give support to everyone, and the fight against HIV/AIDS is a particular focus of our programme in South Africa.

Jeremy Corbyn: In an earlier response, the Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the infrastructure problems of Africa, and pointed out that all the major transport links exist to take mineral or agricultural riches from Africa to the coast for export to western Europe and the United States. I welcome the commission's document. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that the west has made an awful lot of money and riches out of the continent of Africa over the past 200 years. In our support for African development and future economic developments, will he assure me that the International Monetary Fund will no longer descend on African countries insisting on mass privatisation and the imposition of market economies, which do a great deal to damage the agricultural infrastructure and create more rural unemployment and urban shanty towns, and that instead we will develop African internal trade and markets?

Hilary Benn: The experience of structural adjustment in the 1980s was an unhappy one for Africa, as the report makes clear. On the other hand, we must be honest about what is needed if things are to change, and one of the things that Africa needs is investment. That is partly an issue of the climate that Africa itself creates for investment, which must include tackling corruption and establishing an independent legal system. How long does it take to establish a company? I believe that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo it takes an average of 263 days. That is not a great incentive for investment in the DRC, which has a good many other problems as well.
	Part of the issue is what Africa does, and part of it is what the rest of the world does to give Africa an opportunity to trade and earn its way out of poverty. Only if both of those happen will Africa be able, in its own way, to reap the benefits of economic development.

Sydney Chapman: I associate myself entirely with what was said by both the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) about the need to encourage good governance and get rid of corruption in at least certain African countries. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is something that the developed world could do, namely end its obscene practice of subsidising its own agricultural industries? Will he confirm that the developed world subsidises its farmers to the tune of seven times what it gives, in cash or kind, to the developing countries in overseas aid? If that could be at least reversed, there is a better chance that the increased wealth of the world and the advancing engineering and medical technology could be used to stop the hideous obscenity of 8,000 African children dying every day from preventable water-borne diseases.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right. It is an obscenity, and he has given a powerful reason for why it must change. It is no good telling Africa to participate in the world economy if we make it difficult for it to participate. That is why reducing the EU's export subsidies, which have already fallen by 70 per cent. in the last 10 years, is a step in the right direction, and why the commitment to an end date for all export subsidies agreed last July is so important. Only in the negotiations will we see that reach fruition, but it is one of the most important steps that we can take to help Africa create a better future for its people.

Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend said in his statement that there was more democracy in Africa now than before. That is welcome, but is he aware that democracy is about much more than votes? The civic society provisions mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are part of that, as are civil liberties. How do we help to build a grass-roots Africa? Tackling poverty is part of creating conditions in which people can implement democratic provisions, but should we not be helping people to make advances in their democracy, rather than imposing sanctions and specifying no-go areas for aid?

Hilary Benn: We need to do exactly those things, and they are already a feature of our aid programme. We are working with a wide range of civil, voluntary and community organisations to build local capacity for the holding to account of local and national governments. That is a fundamental part of improving governance, and we need to do more of it. We also need to encourage Governments in Africa to engage in better dialogue with civil and community organisations. As I think every Member recognises, that is vital to making democracies function as they grow and develop.

Andrew Robathan: Does the Secretary of State agree that by their works shall ye know them? He will be aware that one commissioner, Prime Minister Zenawi, has led Ethiopia for 15 years. Today, however, a Foreign Office profile says
	The human rights situation in Ethiopia is poor. Detention without trial is frequent, and often open-ended; prison conditions are bad and torture widespread . . . Journalists . . . who are critical of the Ethiopian Government remain at risk of arbitrary arrest and detention.
	Only last month, President Mkapa of Tanzania was lauding Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
	Does the Secretary of State not think that the report would be more credible if those people put their own houses in order before pronouncing on how things should be done? Does he agree with Kenya's former Finance Minister, a very honest man, who told the International Development Committee a few years ago Don't give us any more money; ask us what we have done with the money you have already given us?

Hilary Benn: I do not agree with the last point, because I can seeas the hon. Gentleman canthe impact that Britain's aid money is having in a number of the countries to which he referred, including Ethiopia and Kenya. Nor do I agree in any way with what President Mkapa had to say on Zimbabwe. Our partnership agreement with the Ethiopian Governmentthe hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) raised this point earlierrefers to the steps that they propose to take to address the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred, such as those relating to human rights. Indeed, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi himself acknowledges the existence of such problems. The question is whether the Ethiopian Government are taking steps to change the situation for the better. That is the basis on which we should judge such countries, while at the same time recognising that Ethiopia has a lot of very poor people and that it cannot feed its population. In such circumstances, is it not right to give support to those people through an increasing aid programme, which is precisely what we are doing?

Hugh Bayley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the important issue is not whether the British Government support the commission's robust recommendationsafter all, our Prime Minister will take them to the G8 and to the EU presidencybut whether other world leaders fall in behind them? Does he also agree that if these recommendations are implemented by other G8 and EU leaders, that will mark a step change in the rich world's relations with Africa and enable a much-delayed but still vitally necessary wind of change to blow through Africa? What steps are the commissioners takingespecially those from other G8 countriesto get in touch with parliamentarians in their Parliaments, so that they debate this issue before the G8 summit and put pressure on their Governments to deliver when that summit comes?

Hilary Benn: On that last point, the commissioners will travel round their own countries and others, presenting the commission's recommendations, arguing the case and encouraging people to think about the proposals and what their own countries need to do. This is an argument that needs to be won, and in a sense I come back to where I started. We now have an opportunitya momentbecause the circumstances are right and we have the understanding and the means, as a world, to do something about the situation. The real testif we accept the analysiswill be deciding what we do about it, which is why this year is so important. If there is the will and the commitment, we have the chance by the end of the year to reach agreement on doubling aid, on multilateral debt relief and on enabling Africa to trade its way out of poverty. If we can achieve that, this commission report will have been extremely worth while.

Vincent Cable: May I ask, as somebody who used to work for the Kenya Treasury in the years before it was looted by Arap Moi and his associates, why the Government are undermining the drive against corruption by exempting British businesses from the obligation to declare the identity of their commission agents and financial intermediaries when they apply for Export Credits Guarantee Department assistance and other assistance?

Hilary Benn: I do not know the answer to that question and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on it. All that I would say is that we have taken a number of steps to try to tackle the problem of corruption, including signing up to the UN convention, passing the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, making it an offence to offer a bribeeven if the offer is made abroadand ensuring that, if evidence is brought forward, the person in question is prosecuted here in the UK. So we should recognise the steps that the Government have already taken, but as I said in answer to an earlier question, we will need to reflect further on whether additional steps need to be taken to ensure that we have the most effective means in place to enable the returning of any funds that are looted to the people from whom they have been stolennamely, the people of Africa.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Education Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	When this Government took office in 1997, standards in our schools were too low. Almost half of primary schoolchildren left school not reaching the expected standards. Work force morale was disappointingly low, schools were starved of the investment that they needed to flourish, and the entire schools capital programme stood at less than 700 million. Teachers and children were expected to learn in schools that were literally falling apart at the seams.
	Recognising the importance of education, the Government have worked with heads, governors and teacher unions to create a more stable systema system in which standards are continuing to rise, we have a more diverse work force more suited to meeting the needs of our children, and resources have been put in to help meet those needs. Above all else, we aim for a system where every child is given the tools to reach their full potential at the earliest possible stage.
	We took that challenge as our No. 1 priority, introducing the national literacy and numeracy strategies early in our first term of office. As a result, we have seen the first step change in primary standards for more than 50 years. About 78,000 more 11-year-olds left primary school last year having achieved the expected level for their age in reading and writing than did so in 1998. That means 78,000 more children given a greater chance of success at secondary school and beyond.
	With the vital support and help of the majority of teacher associations, to which I pay tribute today, we established the national work load agreement. The sort of changes and standards that we want require the very best school work forceone that is better qualified and more flexible to meet the changing demands of children in schools. As a result, by January 2004, there were 28,500 more teachers in our schools and 105,000 extra support staff. We are rewarding success. The average classroom teacher's salary is more than 15 per cent. higher in real terms today than in 1997, and a top head teacher's pay more than one third higher. The chief inspector has now recognised that we have the best qualified work force that we have ever had.
	Nor have we been complacent on investment. We have established the largest ever capital investment programme for our schools and will invest 17.5 billion in school buildings over the next three years, with the aim of transforming every secondary school in England. Investment in revenue has also risen dramatically. By 200506, our schools will have seen a 1,000 increase in funding per pupil in real terms since 1997.

Peter Atkinson: The Secretary of State says that 17.5 billion is being invested in secondary schools, so why has Northumberland county council, which has the problem of having to replace many secondary schools, been told that no more money will be available until 2014 at the earliest and 2020 at the latest?

Ruth Kelly: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman accepts the case for investment in secondary school buildings, particularly in the light of the decades of neglect of investment in our secondary school system. The hon. Gentleman should reflect carefully on his policy of taking 1 billion out of the school system, and in respect of Northumberland county council, he should reflect on the fact that we are indeed introducing a staged 15-year programme to replace every secondary school in the country, or to refurbish it to world-class standards. That is our commitment and we will continue to see it through.

Tim Collins: The Secretary of State has once again referred to the figure of 1 billion, which she alleges we are committed to taking out of the school system. Can she point to a single Conservative document or Conservative Front-Bench statement that justifies that figure?

Ruth Kelly: I am absolutely delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman seems to be backing away from his pupil passport policy. Perhaps it is not surprising that I have not heard that passport mentioned in recent policy debates, but if he would like to confirm that that is no longer Conservative party policy, I would be pleased to hear it.

Tim Collins: The challenge, very specifically, was where the Secretary of State got the figure of 1 billion from. She made it up, did she not?

Ruth Kelly: I did not make the figure up. It is a figure that comes from the Centre for Policy Studies, and it relates to the impact that the pupil passport would have on the state school system, as the hon. Gentleman funds education for the elite few while taking funds away from the majority.
	We have seen the results of our investment in schools and our reform of the secondary and primary school systems. Over the past eight years, there has been a 15 percentage point improvement in the number of pupils achieving expected standards for their age in key stage 2 English tests and a 12 percentage point improvement in mathematics. Our 10-year-olds are now the third best readers in the world. Since 1995, the standards in maths reached by our 10-year-olds have improved more than in any other country. Indeed, the chief inspector, David Bell, wrote in his annual report this year:
	The English education system has not stood still but has instead continued to strive for further improvement.
	At secondary level, there are now fewer than 80 schools where less than 20 per cent. of pupils leave with five good GCSEs. When we took office, that number was nearly five times higher. The chief inspector says that parents can have more confidence in the education that their children receive than ever before.
	How, then, does the Bill carry us forward? It introduces three-year budgets for schools, offering unparalleled financial stability and giving governors and heads the scope to plan ahead with greater certainty. It reforms the Teacher Training Agency, giving it responsibility for the continuing professional development of teachers and in the training and recruitment of support staff. The Bill also provides further opportunities for the National Assembly for Wales to build on its proposals, helping to take forward the Assembly's 10-year strategy for comprehensive education and lifelong learning. There are other important and valuable measures, too, which I commend to the House.
	The fundamental reforms concern school inspection and school standards. The Bill transforms school inspection. We inherited a system in which a typical secondary school was inspected once every six years. With the Bill, that will be every three years. Schools now receive six weeks' notice of the inspector's visit. With the Bill, the school will receive next to no notice. Inspections will be take us as you find us, rather than done when the coal has been whitewashed. A typical secondary inspection currently uses 50 inspector days. In future, inspection will use 24 inspector days, halving the cost and enabling Ofsted to reduce costs by 40 million.

Nick Gibb: How does the Secretary of State regard that as providing more rigorous inspection?

Ruth Kelly: I shall come in due course to how schools will use the self-evaluation process and be monitored by Ofsted.
	The new inspection regime will give a sharper picture of a school's effectiveness. It will start from the school's own evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses, look at the school's key systems for improvement and observe lessons. It will take into account the views of parents and all concerned with the school. It will produce shorter, more accessible inspection reports for parents.

Barry Sheerman: Self-evaluation seems a very good idea, and I have heard that there has been a good response to it in schools. However, it is not an easy process. By what method will we train schools to be rigorous in their self-evaluation?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that we are already piloting that new approach in schools, where the response has been overwhelmingly positive. We are working with schools to see how they can use the self-evaluation method to best effect. The key is to move away from a process-based system to one based on outcomes. In that way, the self-evaluation reports produced by schools will give a true reflection of what they do, how they are perceived and how they work with parents and the wider community. Of course, a school can use whatever approach works best for it in arriving at its self-evaluation report, but we shall continue to work with schools to make sure that they are constantly improved.

John Pugh: The Secretary of State has said that she is currently evaluating the pilots. Yet she is also putting self-evaluation into the legislative timetable. Why not wait until the pilot has finished, evaluate it and then introduce legislation? That would seem quite a rational process to me.

Ruth Kelly: We have already worked with 100 schools in the pilot process, and the results have been overwhelmingly positive. The feedback from schools has been good. They think that this is a much less bureaucratic method of inspecting schools and allows for continuous improvement in the school system, and they look forward to being able to use the new system. There is no sense in standing back from the improvements that we are committed to making. We must make it possible for all schools to see the benefit of what we have already achieved with some.

David Chaytor: Does the Secretary of State believe that the majority of schools in England at the moment have the required quality of self-evaluation skills? Is not it only four years since a survey of secondary schools indicated that only 30 per cent. were producing self-evaluation reports that reached the required level? Is she confident that the majority have the skills? Has she looked at the Scottish system? Are there lessons to be learned from Scotland?

Ruth Kelly: The real point is to allow schools to work with school improvement partners to drive up the standards of the self-evaluation mechanism. I am under no illusion; the process will improve over time. But it is right to focus on outcomes rather than processes and to move away from a cosy professional talk among people in the know about what schools should do and towards an emphasis on outcomes and the well-being of children. We need to work with schools to drive their own improvements as they work with their partners, with parents, and with all those who have an interest in the school, to drive up standards. We shall keep the system constantly under review.

Huw Edwards: I acknowledge the changes that my right hon. Friend proposes and I am sure that they will be welcomed within the education professions. Does she agree that the current system can highlight some great achievements and improvements that schools can make? I draw her attention to Ponthir primary school in my constituency, which has just had an excellent Estyn inspection report, the best SATS results in its authority, and the best attendance record in Torfaen. Unfortunately, Torfaen county borough council has proposed closing the school. When my right hon. Friend meets Jane Davidson, the Welsh Assembly Minister, will she discuss the absurdity of that situation?

Ruth Kelly: I shall certainly be happy to receive further details about that situation from my hon. Friend, who recognises the benefits of the procedures and how we can see standards rising throughout the schools system. If he sends me details, I will look into the case.
	The inspection process will produce an ongoing dividend for all schools. A school will publish an annual profile showing its targets for improvements, as well as its current results, and explain the offer that it will make to the wider community in sport, extended services and child care. It will have an annual dialogue on its performance against its improvement targets, allowing a process of continuous improvement for all schools. In developing those proposals, we listened to what schools told us about what prevents them from attaining even higher standards. We are acting on what they have told us.
	The Government have made it clear that we will use the Bill to develop a new relationship with our schools. The Bill makes that a reality by removing the barriers and freeing up our schools. The new relationship is about intelligent accountability and more focused school improvement, reducing burdens on schools and freeing up the front line to concentrate on promoting excellent outcomes for our children.

Nick Gibb: The right hon. Lady referred to a new relationship with schools. The document of that name states that the inspections will be shorter and sharper, and will take no more than two days in a school. Is that right?

Ruth Kelly: That is absolutely right, which is why, although there will be inspections twice as often, the overall impact will be to halve the bureaucracy and red tape associated with school inspections. That is partly why schools are welcoming the change so forcefully and looking forward to the introduction of the new relationship.
	The system is based on professionalism and autonomy. It establishes clearer, stronger lines of accountability and frees our schools from the unnecessary bureaucracy that hinders them from getting on with the job they set out to do: to deliver high-quality educational care to our children. It is a system that allows strategic financial management, with the advent of three-year budgets for our schools.
	Schools should be accountable for the outcomes and improvements they achieve for children, rather than just for having shown that they can jump through a series of regulatory hoops. They must be accountable to the people who are most important: their pupils, their parents and communities. Parents know and trust the judgment of Ofsted, which for the past 12 years has made a significant contribution to raising standards in our country. We must trust our schools and free them from the burdens of inspection. That requires a new system, which places the school and its users at its heart.
	Inspection will start from a school's knowledge of itself. A school that knows itself, is serious about its strengths and weaknesses and engages with its parents, pupils, community and partners openly and transparently will be a strong school, and lead its own improvement faster than any external challenge.
	We propose a new system that provides for more frequent inspections, and the report will specifically address the key issue for all parents: how successful the school is at achieving good educational outcomes for every child. Short notice of inspections will avoid the stress of long preparation, which adds little value to the outcomes for our children. It will also enable inspections to give a more realistic picture of what children experience at school. That is what parents really want to know. We know that, because parents have told us through extensive consultation and trials of the new system.
	The chief inspector has already made it clear that parents' views are critical to the new system. In producing reports, for which he is now the single authority responsible for all quality and content, the chief inspector will not just speak to the school, he will listen to all those with an interestparents, local authorities, governors, carers who have looked after children, staff and, perhaps most importantly, the children themselves.

Barry Sheerman: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said, but how does she square that with the replacement of the formal consultation of parents by questionnaire? Will the new arrangements be good enough to provide real consultation with parents?

Ruth Kelly: Accountability to and consultation with parents will be much stronger under the new system. Under the old system, the whole inspection regime was very process-based. Lots of boxes had to be ticked, forms had to be filled in and meetings had to be held, without real consideration of the outcomes of the process. Under the new process, Ofsted and the school will let the parents know that the inspection is taking place, will provide a variety of means for taking parents' views into account, and will listen to parents about how they want their views to be taken into account. For example, the Ofsted inspector could provide a telephone number so that parents could ring him or her directly with their views of the school. Parents may want to stay behind for an hour after school and have their views listened to. The answer may be a tear-off slip at the end of the letter telling parents about the inspection, for them to send back. Parents will, for the first time, be really involved in the school inspection, in a much more productive way than they have been in the past.
	Parents will be better able to challenge schools to achieve more for their children. They will be better able to make informed choices about which school is best for their children and they will be better equipped to participate fully in the life of the school. Clearer and stronger accountability is essential for the higher standards that our children deserve. Schools must be freed from unnecessary burdens and bureaucracy. One size no longer fits all, and schools must have the freedom to be creative, to be brave and to respond to the diverse challenges that they face. Only if schools are able to be flexible in response to the needs of their particular learners will each child achieve more.

Ann Coffey: In the other place, Lord Filkin said:
	it is government policy that school places should be located where parents want them. There is therefore a strong presumption that proposals to expand successful and popular schools . . . should normally be approved. The fact that there are surplus places elsewhere in the area does not necessarily mean that that should not be approved.[Official Report, House of Lords 18 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. 692.]
	However, in Stockport LEA's recent response to comments on its review of secondary school places, it states:
	In Stockport, the context of falling rolls caused by the falling birthrate means there is no real justification for the expansion of a school anywhere in the borough.
	Local parents recently challenged the LEA successfully on the lowering of the admission limits for a successful and popular school. However, can my right hon. Friend clarify the way forward for parents when government policy supports their aspirations but they are frustrated by the attitude of the LEA?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not familiar with the details of that case, but I know that she has arranged a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to talk about it. That is very welcome. I know of only two cases that have been turned down by local school organisation committees. We have a policy of allowing successful and popular schools to expand, and I would expect that to be the case in most situations.

Mark Hoban: The Secretary of State said that only two applications for expansion had been turned down by school organisation committees. How many schools have successfully expanded?

Ruth Kelly: I do not have the figures to hand, but one would have to add the total agreed at a local level, to those agreed by the schools adjudicator, to those agreed by the DFES, to reach the sum total. It is not the case that every school wants to expand, but I want to make it the presumption that popular and successful schools should be allowed to expand. That will sometimes mean taking tough decisions, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mark Hoban: I may be able to help the Secretary of State with the answer. A parliamentary answer I received in June last year revealed that the Government had helped four schools expand.

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman will know that the figure does not take into account all the categories that I have just outlined. Some of the proposals for expansion are agreed routinely by school organisation committees. He did not ask how the issue was determined at local level. As I understand it, most applications are agreed at local levelbut the Bill will make it easier for capital to be put towards the expansion of successful and popular schools.

David Chaytor: Following the Government's commitment to the 14-to-19 phase of education and their response to the 14-to-19 working group, would not it be more logical to have a common inspection framework that covered both schools and colleges? The improvements and changes to the schools inspection regime that my right hon. Friend is outlining are broadly welcomed by everybody concerned. Am I right in thinking that consultation on a common inspection framework for colleges finished on 31 January, and can she tell the House when she is likely to be able to respond to that? Does she see convergence into a common inspection framework for the whole 14-to-19 sector?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend has made an extremely interesting point. As he knows, there is a big debate in Government, including in the DFES, about the future of inspection regimes, about how far Ofsted should be linked to the early years agendawhich has of course taken placeand about how far Ofsted should be linked across the early years agenda and children's services as a whole, and with training providers. We have consulted on some of the proposals and I expect that we shall be able to respond shortly, but I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to await the outcome of the consultation.

John Pugh: Can the Secretary of State clear up something for me? She seems to have decided that the best inspection system is user-friendly, flexible and almost tailor-made for each school. If that is the case, Ofsted inspectors will receive different amounts of data from different schools when they inspect them. Will that not lead to problems when drawing comparisons between schoolsfor example, when schools do or do not have telephone lines?

Ruth Kelly: I do not agree for a second. Clearly, national data will be developed that schools will apply in their own context. It will become easier to compare schools under the new system.
	Schools need enough resources as well as a good inspection regime. They also need a work force with the right skills. Since the national agreement in January 2003 on the work force, Raising standards and tackling workload, our schools are making more use than ever before of teaching assistants and other support staff in ways that allow teachers to focus their time and energies on what they do bestteaching.
	The Bill continues the development of a world-class work force with a major reform of the Teacher Training Agency. The success of the agency is easy for all to see. More than a million staff are working in our schools, with more qualified teachers than ever before. Vacancy rates are down and recruitment in key subjects such as maths is on the increase, as is recruitment to London schools. The newly named Training and Development Agency for Schools will build on the success of the TTA by assuming responsibility for the continued professional development of serving teachers, as well as taking the lead role in the training and recruitment of the wider school work force. That will create a new professionalism across the school work force and ensure that teachers get the support they need in the classroom to deliver personalised learning to every child.
	Charged with making best use of the record levels of investment available to it, the agency will oversee a new programme to deliver a world-class work force. The Bill introduces three-year budgets, giving schools unprecedented financial stability and the scope to plan resources more effectively to meet the needs of all learners. Head teachers and governors will be able to make decisions about staffing levels and pay, and about how to meet the long-term needs of their school with greater certainty than ever before.
	The Bill will continue the Government's drive to raise standards and increase opportunity for all, irrespective of where they live or the challenges they face. The Bill will raise standards by making school inspection a more effective tool for school improvement, by making schools more accountable to parents, by removing unnecessary prescription that prevents schools from reaching their potential, by giving schools stability to plan for the future, by increasing the professionalism of the school work force and by promoting diversity and flexibility in the system to ensure that children's needs are met. I commend it to the House.

Tim Collins: I start by making it clear that although I hold the Government responsible for a number of problems with our education system, unlike the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) I do not think that a large number of schools in our country have a problem with telephone lines. I think that most of them have probably managed to get connected up.

John Pugh: The point I was endeavouring to make, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman fully appreciates, is that some Ofsted inspectors allow schools to contact them by telephone but some do not. That is what the Secretary of State said. Had the hon. Gentleman been listening carefully, he would have got that point.

Tim Collins: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman clearly, and he said that some schools did not have telephone lines. Anyway, we have made progress and we all agree that, in the 21st century, even under a Labour Government, schools have got telephone lines. Indeed, more and more of them are getting broadband, which is even more important.
	We also need to recognise that, although the Secretary of State started with a long list of achievements in recent years, that must be balanced by recognising that, sadly, a number things have not improved in recent years at all. Assaults on teachers have increased since 1997. Violence in schools is up by 50 per cent. Drug use among school-age children has doubled since 1997. The Statistics Commission recently said specifically that Ministers should not overstate the extent to which the national literacy strategy has made any difference to the improvement in the reported figures that relate to literacy for younger primary school children, yet the Secretary of State, once again, seems to have defied precisely that advice. The National Audit Office recently pointed out that the Government have spent 885 million in the past eight years on anti-truancy initiatives, yet truancy has not improved; indeed, on the Government's own figures, it has worsened by a third in that period.
	The Secretary of State said that one purpose of the Bill is to get rid of bureaucracy. We are all in favour of that, but which Administration, more than any other in British history, have introduced bureaucracy, interference, second-guessing and measurement in respect of our schools? It is this Administration, and after 10 separate pieces of education legislation since 1977, of which this Bill is the 10th, we must judge the Government not by what they say, but by what they have done.
	I was sorry that the Secretary of State found herself taking part in the campaign of what can only be described as smear, fear and, indeed, outright invention that is being pushed by some other members of the Cabinet. When challenged twice by me on whether she could come up with the words of a single Conservative Front Bencher or a Conservative document that would justify the repeated claims that we are committed to taking 1 billion from the schools system, she could only retort that she had got a quote from an independent think-tank. That is not the way in which such debates ought to proceed.
	Indeed, the very policy that we advocate for our education system, which is that money provided by the taxpayer should be spent on behalf of someone else free of charge to that person, is precisely the policy that the Government are introducing in the national health service. Would the Secretary of State say that an NHS patient treated free of charge, paid for by the taxpayer, represents money taken from the NHS? I suspect that some Labour Back Benchers might take that view but I am absolutely certain that her Cabinet colleagues would not, so I hope that we will hear no more of that assertion.

Barry Sheerman: Let us be clear about this. It is on the public record that any incoming Conservative Government would cut public expenditure by a significant amount. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there would be no cut in education expenditure?

Tim Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that we have made it clear that we will not reduce the total amount spent on educationeither what is spent now, or what would be spent under the Government's plans for the future. On the contrary, we propose to increase school spending, for example, by 15 billion a year by the end of a five-year Parliamentan increase of a third on the present leveland any reduction or saving in a school budget made as a result of the Gershon process will be recycled in the school's budget. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put that firmly on record.

Barry Sheerman: We get the same answer from the official Opposition spokesperson on health. The Conservatives suggest that they would make large cuts in public expenditure, but when Labour Members directly ask whether they would be made in education or health, Conservative members say no. Where would those cuts come?

Tim Collins: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to point out that what the shadow Chancellor said most recently, for example, on the Frost programme yesterdaythe hon. Gentleman may have seen itwas that we propose to save 2p in the pound of what is presently spent, bearing it in mind that the Government have increased overall Government expenditure by about 80 to 90 per cent. Contrary to what the Prime Minister and Labour Members often imply, the vast majority of public expenditure is not on schools or hospitals. We could not only preserve the entirety of those budgets and grow them significantly, but find massive savings elsewhere. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out yesterday, we could start by stopping theDepartment of Trade and Industry spending 120,000 over two years on potted plants. We could move on to getting rid of 168 quangos.
	The Labour party must be clear about this. It is putting on its websites the claim that the Conservative party is committed to removing 35 billion from public services. That is the statement. However, we should bear it in mind that 23 billion of that 35 billion is actually part of the Gershon process, so is the Labour party taking the view[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that the Government propose to reallocate that 23 billion to front-line services. So do we. The difference between us is only 12 billion out of 600 billion of total public spending, and, with that 12 billion, we propose to plug 8 billion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's vast black hole of borrowing and reduce taxes by 4 billion. If she and Labour Members honestly believe that the public believe that 100p out of every pound are currently well spent and that we could not save 2p, she and her colleagues will be in for a sad process of disillusionment at the general election.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has surprised the House by saying that the Conservative party's intention is to match the Government's spending on education as opposed to on schools. Can we be assured that, in the next few years, the Conservative party would match our spending on Sure Start, adult skills and apprenticeships?

Tim Collins: It is certainly our intention, assuming that there is an election this year, not only to match the overall spending levels that we inherit, but to increase them. We will not spend them in exactly the same way as the hon. Gentleman but, as he raises the point, I am very happy to make it clear that, contrary again to allegations that are often made by the Labour party, we have no intention of shutting down Sure Start. It has been successful and important in a number of respects, and we wish to build upon it. However, I have to say that we wish to build upon it in a way that does not threaten the continuation of many existing forms of nursery provision in the way that the Government's present policies do.

Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Collins: I will give way one more time, but then I want to come to the Bill before us.

Ivan Lewis: Is the shadow Chancellor aware that the hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the shadow Chancellor's commitment, which is to match this Government's expenditure on schools but not on education? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the position of the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition?

Tim Collins: I understand perfectly that the hon. Gentleman has perhaps not kept up with the issue in the way that he should have done, but I am happy to make it clear that, as a result of the completion of the James process, it has now become possible for us to identify not only that, as we said 18 months and two years ago, we would more than match Government spending on schools, but that overall education funding will increase broadly in line with what the Government are proposing. The difference is that we will spend the money at the front line. We will provide autonomy to schools, budget control to head teachers, get rid of bureaucrats and paper pushers and reduce the Department for Education and Skills by two thirds in terms of its administrative functions and personnel. We will take the money that his Government are spending on paper pushers and give it to front-line teachers and colleges. That money will be

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we now get back to the Bill under discussion?

Tim Collins: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Let us move on to the Bill. The Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear that the Bill is something that we can welcome. It would be a bit odd if we did not welcome it given that very large parts of this huge Bill involve re-enacting without amendment previous pieces of Conservative legislation. The Bill looks substantial, with 128 clauses and 19 schedules. What a testimony to the diligence, effort and original creative capacity of the Secretary of State and her teamone might think. However, sadly, one finds that the Education Act 1996, which the Bill repeals, is re-enacted word for word in clauses 1, 3, 4, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 57 and in schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4. There is an equally long list of word-for-word transpositions in the Bill from the Education Act 1994, which it also repeals. Given that 79 per cent. of the Bill's text is lifted word for word, clause for clause and schedule for schedule from legislation that was put on to the statute book by the last Conservative Government, of course Conservative Members are unlikely to oppose it. However, it shows that there is not a great deal of originality and creativity in the eighth year of a Labour Government.
	There are a few new measures in the Bill about which I shall talk, but we must put that in context given that four fifths of it simply puts back on to the statute book what was there anyway. What an extraordinary waste of parliamentary time. The Government said in recent days and weeks that there was insufficient time for the proper consideration of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill or the European constitution, but they have found enough time to re-enact, word for word, measures that already exist, which make up 80 per cent. of the Bill.
	Let us move on to one or two of the new measures that the Government have included in the Bill. About a week or so ago, we heard from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the importance of parent power. We were told that parent power would be at the heart of their vision for the future of the UK education system. Parent power was going to be the way in which standards in schools would be driven up and something that would uniquely distinguish the Government from any of their predecessors. However, the Bill will remove the right of parents to meet Ofsted inspectors. It will scrap the annual school parents' meetings and remove annual school reports to parents. That does not sound much like parent power to us.
	As is normal in such circumstances, the Bill has been improved during its passage through the other place, which is where it was introduced. Two important measures have been added as a result of amendments that Ministers in the other place resisted. In particular, the Bill now requires parental consultation before the closure of small, rural primary schools. As a result of the Government's defeat in the other place, parental consultation will be required before the closure of special schools. Given the Government's rhetoric about parent power, we hope that the Secretary of State will accept those amendmentseven though her colleagues in the other place resisted themand that the provisions will be included in the Bill that finally completes its passage through the House.
	I welcomed the fact that the Secretary of State talked about her wish for greater freedom for schools. The Bill will result in a little extra freedom for schools at the margin. However, that must be set in context by the fact that the Government's first action on coming into office in 1997 was to remove grant-maintained status from all schools without any consultation with parents, many tens of thousands of whom had voted in parental ballots throughout the land so that their schools could become grant maintained. Even after the Bill is enacted, supposedly freer foundation schools will lack many of the basic freedoms enjoyed by schools with grant-maintained status, which we propose to give to all schools without exception, or the wider school freedoms that we would like to introduce.
	The so-called self-governing schools that the Government propose will not have the absolute freedom to decide whether they wish to expand. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that she does not want to stand in the way of those schools, but she does not propose to give them the power to take such decisions. They will have no power over admissions and there will be no change to the local authority controls over their funding mechanisms. They will have no control over exclusions, or their own right to set up a sixth form. Even city academies will have less freedom under this Government than they will under a future Conservative Government.
	We welcome the Government's proposals to change the structure of local education authorities. Such change is a step in the right direction, but as usual it is half-hearted and belated.
	It was interesting that the Secretary of State did not mention in her speech one of the measures that the leader of the Labour party general election campaign apparently wanted to put at the heart of the Bill: the new power for local education authorities to invite new providers to come along to have a look at whether they want to set up a new school. I wonder why. I suspect that it was partly because she felt that her own Back Benchersthose few who turned upwould not be strongly in favour of the proposal, and partly because she knows that it will make no real difference to any significant number of schools. As long as it remains for local education authorities to determine whether they want a new non-state provider in their area, non-state provision will remain a theory, not a practice. There is certainly no proposal to introduce a statutory right to supply for new providers of education, which the Conservatives propose to introduce straight after the general election.
	The Secretary of State briefly mentioned the national literacy strategy. The Bill might not be the legislative vehicle in which to address such matters, but the Conservatives are wholly convincednot least because of the splendid efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb)that a national literacy strategy that does not have phonics at its heart is a strategy that will not succeed in the way that today's children and future generations have every right to expect.
	Sadly, the Bill constitutes a series of missed opportunities. Even though it is an education Bill, it contains no provision for teacher protection, including a statutory right of anonymity when facing an allegation of abuse. It contains no provision to give head teachers the final say on exclusions, or to give the Secretary of State an unambiguous power to impose a moratorium on special school closures or for parents to be involved in that process. It does not create a school expansion fund and thus makes no progress toward a genuine right to choose.
	The Government still believe that a public sector monopoly, driven from the top, is the best and only way of providing educationeven though that flies in the face of the experience in every other field of human endeavour and the example of a number of other European countries. The Secretary of State, like her predecessors, believes that she knows better than head teachers how to run their schools, how to impose discipline and how to control budgets. Perhaps that is why she got such a rough ride from the Secondary Heads Association.
	Much is being done well in Britain's schools, but a great deal could be done a lot better. Tinkering at the edges will not work, still less tinkering by a Government who have clearly run out of ideas and are running out of time. It is time for action on school discipline, parental choice and professional freedom, and the Conservatives will provide it.

Barry Sheerman: We have an interesting Bill before us, but I commence my remarks by expressing my surprise that in the last moments of his speech, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), speaking for a party that wants better behaviour in the classroom, did not condemn the rudeness of the Secondary Heads Association but instead voiced some approval for it. Such behaviour at teachers' conferences, whether of the Secondary Heads Association, the National Union of Teachers, or the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, is unacceptable to me and to the head teachers whom I meet up and down the country. Such behaviour does not set an example of good leadership or inspire good behaviour in schools. As one who had a pretty rough time at a Secondary Heads Association conference five years ago and still has the bruises, I do not think that that is how conferences should behave. If one invites someone to be one's guest, one should listen to that person and question him or her robustly, not display such poor behaviour. It gives a much worse example to children and students than the behaviour of premier league footballers, which the Secondary Heads Association wants to

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman really must address the Bill that is before the House today.

Barry Sheerman: Now that I have got that off my chest, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall get straight into the Bill.
	The Bill is the legislative vehicle for the provisions of A New Relationship with Schools. It also has an interesting relationship with the Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners. I have to tell the Secretary of Stateonce she has finished her little conflab and bad behaviour on the Front Benchthat some of us in the education sector are bemused by the fact that there is not more of the five-year strategy in the Bill. There is a general thrust in the five-year strategy towards greater choice and allowing schools to become foundation schools with much more independence and autonomy. We would expect that to be made explicit in the Bill, as the stated aim of the Government's policy is to free schools from bureaucratic burdens and to provide greater school autonomy.
	This is a quiet little Bill in some senses but a momentous one in others. Given developments in the education sector and the direction of Government policy, one can see that a great deal of the architecture and infrastructure of education is changing dramatically. It is therefore important during the Bill's progress through Parliament that we are aware of the fundamental changes that it will bring about. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, I know that when it is suggested that there will soon be a general election one tends to have a lot of planes in the air that one has to land before it is called. I spent a busy weekend dealing with the final drafts of a number of reports that impinge on Government policy in the Bill. A number of themes emerge from a range of reports on 14 to 19-year-olds and the early years, the Green Paper Every Child Matters, and the secondary schools review over the past 18 months. The Government believe in greater co-operation between schools, and in giving schools a collegiate structure.
	In her very first speech as Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly) emphasised to the north of England conference the importance of good behaviour by children and students, and talked about the need to tackle problems by establishing partnership and collegiate schools. I, for one, was inspired by her remarks, as not only did she propose that a group of schools would collaborate to tackle poor behaviour but facilities to do so would be provided. The umbilical cord linking pupils and students to the school would remain intact, so there would be a core responsibility, whether the student was in a pupil referral unit or on work experience.
	The notion of collegiate schools is associated with Tim Brighousethe Select Committee saw the very good work that he is doing in Birmingham and he is also the inspiration behind work in London. Collegiates, co-operation, partnership and the specialist school agenda link together to make a broader choice in the curriculum available to a greater number of students. I am not sure that that ties in with another strand in Government thinking about providing greater independence for schools.
	Although it is included in the five-year plan, the Bill does not make include provision for schools to obtain foundation status after a single meeting by the governors. After deciding that they want their school to have foundation status, the governors can move on to owning their own buildings and land and gaining a great deal of autonomy. There is a tension in Government policy between those two ideals. Do they complement or compete with each other? The Government should be aware that many people in the education world wonder how those tensions will resolve themselves, but it is an important issue to consider as we begin our deliberations on the Bill.
	Another respect in which the Bill is deceptive is the momentous impact that the Children Act 2004 will have on the Department for Education and Skills. It marks a dramatic change in the education infrastructure of our country. Until a recent meeting with the Local Government Association, I did not realise, and as Chairman of the Select Committee, I was rapped over the knuckles for not realising, that local education authorities no longer exist. That is a momentous change. It does not mean that local authorities do not have responsibility for education, but as the LGA said, it no longer refers to local authorities as LEAs, and any literature from the Committee that did so would be incorrect. LEAs are now local authorities with responsibility for the Children Act and for many other aspects of education, but are no longer the traditional local education authorities.

John Pugh: Has the hon. Gentleman identified any reference in the Bill to the Children Act 2004? If not, does he find that deeply surprising?

Barry Sheerman: That is a fair point, and I shall come to it in a moment.
	With the demise of LEAs, there is a new role for local authorities. A consequence of Every Child Matters, the Children Act and the Bill is the move to direct funding. Our Committee recently carried out a thorough investigation, and only today I received from the Secretary of State the reply to the inquiry into public spending on education. I know that some of our comments and recommendations in that report have been rebutted by the Department. We will be considering that at an early meeting.
	The direct funding of schools by the Department changes what I have called the infrastructure of education. Local authorities may not continue their traditional role, but they still have a role. I know that the Secretary of State and her predecessor believe that. Local authorities have a large range of responsibilities, albeit different ones.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Committee, on which I serve. The Bill refers throughout to LEAs. Is it likely that the Local Government Association is wrong to say that LEAs have been abolished, or is the Bill wrong to refer to local education authorities?

Barry Sheerman: I was teasing the Secretary of State to come back with an answer as to which is right.
	There are two aspects to the architecture of changethe role of local authorities and the independence of schools, and inspection. Many of the provisions in the Bill for more streamlined inspections have been called for by the Select Committee for some time. We welcome many of the changes in the inspection process. There is no doubt that an inspection process that has been in place for 12 years needs to be adapted to new circumstances. Most people will welcome lighter inspection and more rapid and regular inspection.
	There is to be much greater emphasis on self-evaluation and self-improvement. As the House heard in my intervention on the Secretary of State, there is some concern about getting self-evaluation right. Even in the pilot areas, there have been cases where schools have gone in for rigorous self-evaluation and found themselves utterly vulnerable when the inspectorate focused on the weaknesses identified by the school, which some schools felt was rather unfair.
	There needs to be an understanding of the self-evaluation process, how it can lead to self-improvement, and how that will mesh into the new system of inspection. That balance will have to be worked out over time. I asked the Secretary of State what measures were in place to raise the level of knowledge and introduce training for self-evaluation. The experience of the 100 pilot areas and good practice must quickly be disseminated to all the thousands of schools that need to know how to play the new game.
	Over the weekend, when I looked at the reports that the Select Committee will soon be completing, I was struck by the vast number of inspections and inspectorates in the local authority education sector. We interviewed some of the people involved in those during our inquiry into the Children Act 2004. There are undoubtedly great sensitivities between bodies such as the Audit Commission, the social services inspectorate and Her Majesty's inspector of schools, and those will not be quickly resolved. There have been many attempts to get a working agreement to ensure that there will not be over-inspection of local authorities whereby several departments are inspected by Ofsted, and then the Audit Commission comes in to inspect the same departments. We must be very careful about the amount of inspection. That has become much more complex since the introduction of the 2004 Act, and most of the people to whom I speak, whether in the country or in this House, do not understand its ramifications or just how much difference it makes to the responsibilities of the Department for Education and Skills, which is the lead Department.
	I was disappointed when the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale seemed to put so much faith in getting rid of potted plants in the Department of Trade and Industry as a way of helping with the cuts in public expenditure that have been much vaunted by the shadow Chancellor. However, I too have some concern about the role of parents. There is no doubt that parents seem to be losing some of their rights in terms of Ofsted inspectionsnamely, their annual meeting and annual report. Let us be honest about this. We all know that the Conservative Government's original legislation on annual meetings has been disappointing. It may be an old-fashioned way to do things. I know that many schools around the country are deeply disappointed about the amount of parent participation that comes through those more traditional methods. Perhaps it would be better to use the internet or questionnaires, but the process has to be fully worked through in a positive spirit to ensure that parents are closely involved. I am not one of those who believes that the whole answer lies in parent participationit does not.
	Last week, I spoke at the Royal Society of Arts about designing decent schools in view of the massive expenditure on new school buildings that the Government have embarked on. As someone who is very interested in design and architecture, especially its sustainability, I am keen, as are the RSA, the Design Council and others, that the quality of the new build is goodthat it will not only last for a very long time but will be exactly what the people who are educated in those buildings will enjoy.

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman may be awareI would be interested to hear his comments on this as Chairman of the Select Committeethat some of the people behind the exciting projects for new city academies say that they find it very frustrating to have to use a high proportion of the funds available to them on architects' fees. They would like standard, bespoke, off-the-shelf designs from which they could choose and which they could move around in a modular fashion. Does he agree that that would not only be desirable but would deal with his points about quality of design?

Barry Sheerman: I could not disagree more. This country's public architecture has been blighted for years by off-the-shelf design. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in design, I can take him to within a mile of this Palace and show him the ghastly effects of off-the-shelf design in the public and private sectors. Such design is a blight and the last thing that I want. I have seen some exciting developments in design in city academies. One of the London academiesin Hackney, I thinksupported by the Union Bank of Switzerland concentrates on maths and music and is designed in the shape of a guitar. That is wonderful and exhilarating, and one of the finest architects in Britain is designing it.
	Individual design is therefore important. The Select Committee has visited many new build schools and found that three things appear to work: taking design seriously, consulting students and teachers, and having good architects who know something about the locality. We need unique, not off-the-shelf design.

David Rendel: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more about design, but does he agree not only that the school design needs to be unique but that how it fits into the local environment is important?

Barry Sheerman: Absolutely. I compliment John Sorrel and the Sorrel Foundation and joined-up design in schools. They do a fantastic job in inspiring students to be involved in the design and modification of their schools. I see you are looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall leave design and revert to inspections.
	The inspections will be generally welcomed for being lighter and faster. As I said, the role of parents has to be carefully evaluated because they do not have all the answers. Before the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale intervened, I was about to say that parents do not know everything. Indeed, if we let parents have the only say on design, I fear that we would end up with mock Tudor, half-timbered schools. A balance between good architects and parent-student views is desirable.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State a serious question. I am a bit worried about her since she took up her position in only one regard. The Bill appears to remove the strong claim that the Select Committee, by custom and practice, had to calling the chief inspector of schools and Ofsted to account. For a long time, there has been a belief that the right way for the chief inspector to be held accountable to Parliament is through the Select Committee. That came about when Chris Woodhead was the chief inspector. I understand that he will play a major role in designing much of the curriculum for the Conservative party. We look forward to seeing what sort of curriculum that will be. It seems a lot of power to give one former chief inspector.

Ivan Lewis: Teachers will love it.

Barry Sheerman: Yesthe teachers will be queueing up to help.
	However, I am making an important parliamentary point. The three former Secretaries of State accepted that there was a special relationship of accountability between Ofsted and Parliament through our Committee. Unfortunately, the Bill appears to push in the opposite direction. The previous measure that pertained to Ofsted provided for only four responsibilities for the chief inspector of schools in relation to the Secretary of State. The Bill provides for eight, starting with
	the quality of the education provided in the school
	and ending with behaviour and attendance of pupils. It seems to establish a clear relationship with Ofsted at one end and the bossesthe Departmentat the other. Will the Secretary of State give my Committee and me some comfort by assuring us that we remain in the loop and that we shall continue to have a role in future?
	This is an interesting Bill, but I suspect that we shall have to have this debate all over again at some point, because as we all know, the Bill will not come to fruition if there is an election on 5 May. Perhaps that explains the lighter attendance today. Education debates are usually very well attended on both sides of the House. However, it is an important Bill, and there are some interesting dilemmas that all of us in the education sector want to press the Government on. That is the nature of a healthy relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
	Lastly, I want to know whether the Secretary of State and her team believe that the relationship between Ofsted and Parliament will be changed by the Bill.

John Pugh: The Bill does not set the pulse racing, which is probably why most hon. Members so far have preferred to talk about something else. It was well summarised by the Conservative Lord Hanningfield, who described it in the House of Lords as
	a Bill which appears to be a large compendium of different issues without . . . truly innovative ideas within it.[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 December 2004; Vol. 667, c. 1099.]
	Perhaps we should not regret the lack of innovation. Innovation is good in schools and in teachers, and perhaps in local education authorities, but probably not in Governments coming up to an election wanting to create eye-catching headlines and capture cheap votes.
	The Bill is certainly a compendium; the noble Lord was right in that regard. It is a piecemeal affair, with a number of hastily added clauses and schedules. We can almost see the draftsmen adding bits on here and there as they went along. It is the product of at least four different forces: the wild ideologues of No. 10; the Department for Education and Skills, which has a slightly better grasp of real-time education; the educational world and its lobbyists; and the wise counsel of the noble Lords. All four have had an input. I do not want to over-stress the role of the noble Lords, because they have had enough flattery lately and there is a danger that they might become seriously vain.
	The Bill is a curate's egg; it is both good and bad. The good is fairly evident and has been mapped out already in this debate. The Bill introduces a more frequent inspection regime with a lighter touch, which is good. Although Ofsted has done much good in sharpening focus and procedure in schools, we should not forget its past failings. Assessors should always be assessed and, when possible, made accountable. Ofsted, particularly under its previous chief inspector, Chris Woodhead, ran a reign of terror without adequate appeal. I know from personal experience that it drove good teachers out of their chosen profession and saddled all teachers with an absurd bureaucratic role.

David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman find it unusual that the official Opposition now appear to have re-employed the former chief inspector, and does he expect him to run a reign of terror through their election manifesto?

John Pugh: The official Opposition are not averse to kamikaze tactics. I can assure them that that simple announcement has lost them the vote of every teacher in the country in one fell swoop.
	To return to the issue of bureaucracy, most schools not only have inspections of inordinate length but hire consultants to do pre-inspections, which adds to the overall cost and bureaucratic burden. Overdosing on inspections without first demonstrating the need for them is a mistake that the Government make over and over again. Best value in local government is another example of such bureaucracy. An equivalent situation in the medical world would be a doctor who dealt with every ailment by first giving the patient the maximum dose of a drug, and only reducing it over a period of time, or who sawed off a limb before considering applying a plaster.
	The changes proposed in the Bill are predictable, and the Government should probably apologise for introducing them as late as this. However, it is too late for some schools. In relation to Mr. Woodheadthe Pol Pot of the inspection worldI was given the example of Islington Green school, which complained about the chief inspector's judgments in 1997. In that year, Chris Woodhead overruled a unanimous decision by a series of inspectors that the north London comprehensive had passed its inspection, and declared it to be failing. It has taken eight years and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to disclose what the staff and pupils knew all along: that the school was improving. A team of Her Majesty's inspectors sent to the school on behalf of Mr. Woodhead to carry out a corroboration visit unanimously backed the view that it was not failing. None the less, Mr. Woodhead went ahead and put it on the list of 265 schools requiring special measures. That is not an encouraging precedent, but it is encouraging that the Tories see a future role for the gentleman.
	A change in model is proposed, coupled with a saving of bureaucracy and the ending of pre-inspections, which schools cannot do all the time, as there would simply be no point. I do not know whether short, sharp, unheralded inspections will be less frightening for schools, but there is the promise that they will be more constructive. Some of the comments of the Secretary of State move in that line. The Bill still provides a key roleI thought that I would talk about the Billfor HMIs, and a residual role, as I understand it, for LEAs' inspection, too, which can perform a positive role.
	There is no evidence that the Government have learned a great deal from history, however, and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It would be remiss of me not to mention that school inspections have a long history in this country. The 19th   century poet, Matthew Arnold, was a school inspectorI ponder how much poetry is in the soul of the current school inspectorate.
	None the less, the range of inspections, including nursery, careers, child minding, independent schools and religious education, is well mapped out, and we have no particular objection to such a range. What is at issueand what has not been entirely clear so faris the manner and objectives of such inspections. Perhaps the whole issue was left deliberately cloudy. We are broadly sympathetic, however, to the changes in that direction. We are broadly sympathetic to the reduction in categories of failure, and to the strange inclusion, for this Government, somewhere in the Bill in relation to Wales, of a reduction in the Secretary of State's power in relation to inspections. That is the first time in the House that I have seen a Secretary of State's power reduced voluntarily.
	I want to flag up one issue that might create problems later. The Government are now giving a green light, in a sense, to further sixth-form expansion where there is some sort of demand, and where schools have proved their ability. That will almost inevitably lead to smaller sixth forms that do not provide the full range of subjects for pupils and their parents. In those circumstances, there will be more scope, not less, for examining sixth forms.
	The Bill contains other proposals to which we have no particular objection. A hooray is due for the abolition of parents' meetings. I say that as someone who was once on an LEA and examined the absolutely dismal turnout at those meetings. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) thinks, LEA after LEA has asked the Department whether it can stop this charade, as it is not how parents wish to be involved. Various recipes have been tried to get parents more involved but they have persistently stayed away. In one school that I examined, one parent and a whole phalanx of governors attended the meeting. When I inquired as to why that one parent had come, I was told that, coincidentally, that parent was the caretaker and had to come. That shows the support for such meetings in many places.
	We are generally fairly neutral on whether to change the governors' report into a profile, as it could be the same thing under another banner. Three-year funding, varied with data, is quite a reasonable idea. In that proposal, however, it seems to me that No. 10 wanted its pound of flesh. It seemed to want a move towards equalisation of funding, and there might be some hidden agenda in that regard. The current arrangements are subtly changed. At the moment, as I understand it, there is core LEA funding in addition to discretionary LEA funding taken from or recharged to the schools, with the Government specifying the overall spending level. The legislation seems to put in a hurdle whereby the school forum's approval must be secured. I presume that that idea has crept in from No. 10. The LEA can appeal to the Secretary of State, however, if it is not satisfied. It strikes me that such sophistication is not necessary and does not add a great deal to the process.
	The Bill deals with two aspects of school organisation: the opening of new schools and the rationalisation or closure of existing schools. In the context of the opening of schools, the LEA is largely being reduced to the status of promoterthe decision-maker being the school organisation committee, the Secretary of State being involved whenever the magic word academy is used, and the adjudicator being the final point for appeals. That is how the system operates, but given that it is bounded by the Secretary of State's regulations in the first place, what we have is a process that an authority can start but cannot subsequently control, and ultimately must fund. That regime is well established by the Bill.
	On school closures, the Government have been very boldI would almost say reckless: brave, but foolhardy. They will give directions to LEAs and foundation schools when there seems to be over-provision, without of course mentioning individual schools. If they are not satisfied with how the process is evolving, they can take it over. Many Governments in the past have thrown on local authorities the onus to make all the unpopular decisions, and perhaps I should praise the Government in this instance for having taken some of the burden of unpopularity on themselves. It is possible that they are serious about falling rolls, and want to address what could be a considerable issue for the country; it is also possible that they will live to regret what they are doing.
	There is an animus against LEAs in this and the previous Government's legislation, which was reflected in the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. If LEAs did not exist, however, it would be necessary to invent them. They have a hugely important role to play in quality control, behaviour support and so ona role that the Government are not entirely capable of playing, and perhaps are not competent to play. Hon. Members will recall that a few days ago the former Minister for Schools, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), was chastised by Mr. Speaker for misbehaviour in the Chamber. In those circumstances, we cannot have a great deal of confidence in the Government's ability to address issues of behaviour.
	LEAs, it seems to me, are supporters of schools, co-ordinators of schools and sources of innovation for schools, but, crucially, their role is to guarantee that no child in a given area fails to receive a proper entitlement. They are guarantors of equal provision. No free market, no anarchy, no competition will fulfil that role. The unjustified erosion of LEA powers is regrettable, but it is argued for. LEAs are given targets and duties, but in no sense are they given enhanced powers.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned allowing public-school governors to get their schools to opt out of the LEA family simply by means of a vote, without even the democratic procedures that the Conservatives built into the opt-out system. That is a regressive step. During the opt-out procedure, the governing body of a school in my LEA, in what was once my ward, chose that route. There was a vote by parents, whichin a middle-class area in which the governing body might have expected to succeedcontradicted the governing body. That school has gone on to be extraordinarily successful. It has well-behaved children and high standards, and is very much part of the LEA family.

Kelvin Hopkins: A school in my constituency which opted out subsequently became a failing school and was subjected to special measures. Happily, that is no longer the case, but the difference between opted-out schools and those that stay with local authorities now seems to be fairly meaningless.

John Pugh: What the Government are doing, and what the Conservatives never did, is disempowering parents whose children attend a school and preventing them from making a decision on behalf of that school, while allowing a limited number of governors to make decisions that might have radical consequences for the educational picture in their area.
	Finally, I turn to an issue that detained their lordships a little: the role of the General Teaching Council. The GTC as defined in previous legislation was set up to give a professional image to a heavily unionised profession, and the model was the General Medical Council. The GTC tried to acquire a role in the educational environment commensurate with the initial definition of its functions, but this Bill allows teachers in academies not to belong to the GTC. As a result, the GTC is to some extent losing its real role and the reasons for its creation are largely being forgotten. If this compendium of legislation is to contain a measure that works against other legislation, the compendium will be very muddled.

David Chaytor: This is not the most exciting or radical Education Bill of recent years but it contains a number of sensible proposals and certain principles on which there is now broad consensus. I simply want to make some general observations about some of the Bill's implications. Frankly, nobody is going to object to the new inspection proposals, and I commend Ofsted and the current chief inspector on the drawing up of his new inspection framework, which responds sensitively to the criticisms of the old regime of terror to which the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) referred.
	However, the issue of inspection does give rise to certain questions. Mention has already been made of the extent to which allor even mostschools are fully prepared, through their self-evaluation procedures, to take on greater autonomy in this regard. There is also the question of the role of school improvement partners, and of the Ofsted system in England, which traditionally involves purely inspection and accepts no responsibility for following up criticisms made during the inspection process. Perhaps we could learn more from the system that applies in Scotland, where inspection and follow-through are seen as part of a continuous process. I urge the Secretary of State and the Government to take on board what happens in Scotland.
	Nobody is going to object to the change to the name of the Teacher Training Agency or to the introduction of three-year budgets. The tragedy is that we have not had such budgets in our schools for many years, and I commend the Government on finally getting to grips with this issue. But I should draw attention to an issue that might affect some of the local authoritiesthey include my own in Burythat were the biggest losers under the old standard spending assessment system. By and large, those at the bottom of the funding league table under the SSA system welcomed the change in the formula introduced two years ago and the move to formula spending share. Generally speaking, the authorities that lost out under the old system made gains under the new one, but someincluding my ownfound that the full gains to which they were entitled did not follow through because of the introduction of floors and ceilings. My local authority claims to have lost several million pounds to which it was entitled under the new formula but which it has yet to receive in grant allocation.
	Will the move not only to three-year budgeting but to direct central control of budgeting ensure that authorities that should have gained under the move from SSA to FSS will get the full gains to which they are entitled? I raised this issue with the former Secretary of State for Education when he responded to the phoney funding crisis of two years ago and decided that direct funding from the centre was the way forward. Everyone will doubtless agree that it would be completely unjust if, when we had moved to a fairer system, some authorities still did not get their full gains because of the additional move to a highly centralised system.

Mark Francois: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely, but I must contend with what he has just said. The funding crisis was not phoney; indeed, in Essex there was a very severe crisis because of the change from SSA to FSS, and a large number of schools had to throw in all their reserves in one go so as not to set deficit budgets. That caused real anger among schools and teachers in the county, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

David Chaytor: I am afraid that I am not going to, because the point is that schools in Essex and in other authorities had for a number of years been receiving up to 1,500 per pupil more than some metropolitan districts. The issue is: what have they done with that money? The hon. Gentleman mentions Essex schools' reserves, but many others never had the opportunity to build up reserves, precisely because the funding system was skewed against some of the poorer northern districts. So I am afraid that I am not going to withdraw that comment.

Mark Francois: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members of the nature of today's debate.

David Chaytor: I shall move on to the two issues to which I really want to draw attention. First, one reason why the Bill is spectacularly consensual is that many of the Government's more radical proposals of recent times do not need current legislation. The principle of schools becoming foundation schools by a single vote of the governing body, and last autumn's consultation document, on shifting the presumption in favour of the opening of new sixth forms, could have radical implications for the structure of our school system and colleges. Moreover, the major decisions on the curriculum have been taken through the Government's response to the 14-to-19 working party's recommendations, so the interesting thing about the Bill is that the really radical changes to our secondary school system's funding, structure and curriculum have all taken place outside the Bill.
	The Government have made their decision on Tomlinson, and I hope that there will be a further chance to come back to that issue in the 2008 review. But I urge them to look particularly carefully at the responses to their proposed presumption in favour of the opening of new sixth forms, which has the potential massively to destabilise the provision of education in certain areas. If the preference or ambition of a particular school or head teacher were to lead to the opening of a new small sixth form without reference to the pattern of education in a particular area, that could prove destabilising and could actually work against the Government's declared intention of bringing about greater co-operation between schools in order to implement the full implications of the new 14-to-19 curriculum.
	I now turn to my second major observation. Although I appreciate the extent to which, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) pointed out, the Bill is designed to repeal earlier legislation, many of its clauses seem to have been conceived in advance of the Government's decision to establish a clear 14-to-19 phase of education. I referred to inspection during an intervention on the Secretary of State at the start of the debate. If we are to have a unified 14-to-19 phase of educationand if students in the 16-to-19 phase can be in school or in college, and which type of institution they find themselves in is just a matter of historical or geographical accidentit is surely self-evident that subjecting those schools and colleges to different inspection regimes is an enormous anomaly. There can be no logical argument for continuing with two separate inspection regimes. Once we have decided on a unified 14-to-19 phase of education, it follows that inspection of the institutions that are co-operating to deliver that phase should be carried out under a unified framework.
	I make a similar point in respect of the training and development agency. It is obvious that students pursuing the same course in adjacent districts or even within the same district could be taught either by a secondary school teacher or a further education teacher, yet it remains the case that the secondary school teacher will be subject to the new Training and Development Agency for Schools, but the further education teacher will not. How can the same teachers working with students on the same courses find themselves ineligible to take advantage of the same professional development opportunities? I believe that the Government should revisit the issue of whether the new body should cover both school teachers and FE college teachers.
	Staffing is a related matter. Some clauses bring about new requirements to provide more accurate monitoring of staffing in our secondary schools, but the same requirements do not apply to staffing in FE colleges. The reality is that since 1993, successive Governments have said that the staffing of FE colleges is not a matter for the Government, but entirely for the individual college corporations. That cannot be sensible whenI reiterate the pointwe have a unified curriculum. Where is the sense in collecting statistics on staff teaching GCSE and A-level courses in schools without collecting them on staff teaching similar courses in FE colleges?
	I want to draw attention to some of the implications of foundation status for all schools. I vividly recall the Education Reform Act 1988 and the opportunities offered to schools to become grant maintained. My argument then, as chair of an education committee that faced the prospect of being the first local education authority in the country to implode because of the pressure of so many schools opting to become grant maintained, was either that the legislation allowing grant-maintained status must be abolished or that all schools must be allowed to become grant maintained. I am delighted that, 17 years on, the Government have now finally accepted that we should not have a two-tier system in which special funding privileges and special autonomies apply to certain schools but not to others. The Bill makes it clear that all schools will be eligible for foundation status.
	I question whether everything that the Government are doing is moving in the same direction. Alongside the move to greater autonomy and managerial devolution, we also have a parallel movement towards recognition of a much greater need for co-operation. The Government's argument in putting the case for the growth of specialist schools is that such schools will need to co-operate with other specialist schools to provide a rich curriculum and staff development opportunities. In response to the Tomlinson report and the 14-to-19 working group, it was argued that in future, schools would have to take collective responsibility for the progress of pupils in a given area. It is increasingly likely that individual pupils will attend different schools to take advantage of a particular specialism, or attend schools or colleges for curricular reasons.
	If we are giving schools greater powers of autonomy and greater independence, but also saying that they will have to co-operate more closely with each other in order to provide the full range of the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-old students, there is clearly a tension between those two proposals. I wonder whether the Government have fully thought through the implications of the new autonomy. What incentives will they offer schools to co-operate in the recommended way?
	That issue is highlighted above all in the matter of the school's autonomy on admissions. As the law now stands, if 3,000 secondary schools all become foundation schools, we will have 3,000 new admissions authorities. If we think about the war on bureaucracy, I would have thought that there was no argument whatever for increasing the number of individual admissions authorities, which would inevitably lead to a greater level of bureaucracy, form-filling and needless paperwork. I am therefore flagging up the question of whether the Government have really thought through the implications of foundation status for all schools, in terms of every school becoming its own admissions authority.
	Broadly, it is impossible to take exception to the Bill, which moves our education system forward in the right direction. The Government's achievements over the last eight years are indisputable. It was encouraging to hear the official Opposition recognisedespite some nit-picking over statisticsthe great improvements made to both primary and secondary schools. Parents in my constituency, however, will be unconvinced by the Opposition's assurance that if they ever come to power, they will not cut the education budget. Parents will not be convinced that under a Conservative Government it would be possible to sustain the year-on-year level of investment that this Government have sustained over the last eight years. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale may think that an attack on bureaucracy and foliage may find the savings that he is looking for, but I do not believe that that is credible.

Nick Gibb: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), but I have to shatter the illusion that no one objects to the Bill's provisions. I do object to some of them, particularly on inspection regimes and self-evaluation. It is terribly important to maintain a rigorous and independent inspectorate of our schools and I have serious concerns about the Bill in that respect. I share the view of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) about the behaviour of the Secondary Heads Association at its recent conference. It reflects badly on their profession and if those heads cannot even set a decent example, it will make it more difficult for them to maintain discipline in their own schools.
	I am continually struck by the cycle of decline in British education, which predates this Administration, but still flourishes, despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, under new Labour. How does the cycle of decline work? Those with an egalitarian viewpointalas, they still dominate policy making in the education worldintroduce a reform, for example the AS-level as a component part of the A-level exam, in order to create an over-arching exam that blends two different ability levels. That over-burdens A-level students with too many exams, so to tackle the problem, they propose sweeping away external assessment at 16, replacing it with more self-evaluation and teacher assessment. Thank goodness the Secretary of State has rejected that proposal.
	Another example was the introduction of GCSEs in the mid-80s. Again, it was an overarching exam to encompass both CSE and GCSEs with grades ranging from A and now A* to G. Predictably, grades D to G began to be regarded as fail grades, so it was then proposed to return to separate level 1 and level 2 qualifications within the Tomlinson diploma proposalsessentially a return to the old distinction. The worst clauses in the Bill propose making more of such reforms.
	Ofsted was established in 1992 to tackle the very real concern that Her Majesty's inspectors were insufficiently robust in their opinions. There were concerns about the rigour and quality of their inspections. They were, as it was said at the time, the dog that did not bark in the night, and were too close to the Department of Education. That was why Ofsted was established as a non-ministerial department with, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, Her Majesty's chief inspector directly accountable to Parliament. I share his concerns about where that accountability rests under the Bill.
	It soon became clear that Ofsted's reports were rigorous and led to many schools having to reassess their quality of teaching. Most inspections were carried out by independent inspectors who were trained and registered as Ofsted inspectors, but were sub-contractors. My concerns about the Bill are that it means smaller inspection teams, led by an inspector, and that the chief inspector will be able to amend its reports. It also proposes to reverse the requirement to tender for contractors in respect of each inspection and removes the requirement to maintain a register of authorised inspectors. All that looks to me like a move to take inspection back in house, and to return, in other words, to the bad old days of HMI and the days of the curious incident of the dog in the night.
	I am concerned by the notion of the short, sharp inspection. Of course, over the years the bureaucracy of Ofsted inspections has increased, with schools being required by the Department and local education authorities to produce volumes of paper as preparation for an inspection. That was never the purpose of the rigorous inspection envisaged in the 1992 legislation. It is right, therefore, that the Bill introduces a shorter notice period for inspections to prevent that bureaucratic nonsense from occurring.
	It is not right, however, to reduce either the number of inspectors or the length of the inspection. Inspectors will, under the Bill, as the Secretary of State has confirmed, take no more than two days and will have smaller inspection teams. We are told that the inspectors will focus on the school's own self-evaluation evidence. As Lord Filkin said in the other place, schools will feed in their self-evaluation evidence to the inspection team, then inspectors will engage with the schools in a professional dialogue examining the evidence in support of the self-evaluation. Yet because inspectors will see little actual teaching during their inspections, there is little that the inspections will add to the sum total of knowledge about the school, other than in reprinting already available exam result data.
	In two days there will be very little time to obtain evidence to support or contradict self-evaluation. As Baroness Perry said:
	The framework which has been piloted in the current year for the light-touch inspections smacks too much of bureaucratic ticks in boxes.[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 December 2004; Vol. 667, c. 1133.]
	I share that concern. A rigorous, independent inspection of the quality of teaching in a school is to be replaced by a short bureaucratic box-ticking exercise.
	So the cycle of decline will continue. Every form designed to deal with the over-bureaucratisation of Ofsted inspections, which was never intended, has been hijacked now to emasculate the rigour and independence of those inspections. That matters hugely. In our system, schools are, in practice, unaccountable. The only real accountability were the Ofsted inspections and reports that received widespread local coverage.
	If a local parent is unhappy with the policies of his or her children's school, there is very little he or she can do. For example, if the head teacher of a comprehensive decides that all English lessons should be taught in mixed ability classes, who should local people lobby if they object? Do they lobby their Member of Parliament, who can then raise the matter with the Secretary of State? No. Questions of whether or not to stream are, it seems, matters for the professionthe head teacher and the governors of a particular school. Do parents raise the matter with their local councillor so that he or she can raise it with the council cabinet member responsible for education or with the director of education? No, and for the same reason.
	Key policy decisions, such as the degree of setting or streaming, which directly affect the quality of teaching in a school, are totally outside the democratic structures of the state. The only thing parents can do is to become a governor of a school. Most simply do not have the time to take on such obligations. In any case, there is real doubtI know of no examplesas to whether a parent-governor would be able to change key policies, such as whether the synthetic phonics programmes referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) are used to teach reading in primary schools or whether streaming should be reintroduced in a comprehensive.
	The only real accountability has rested with the Ofsted inspections, and the Bill effectively renders such inspections meaningless.

Mark Francois: Before my hon. Friend moves on from governors, may I put one point to him? One reason why many schools are having difficulty finding governors is that where schools themselves have had to deal with much more paperwork in recent years, that has rolled on down to the governors who have had to deal with more, too. The time involved in being a governor seems to go up and up. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is increasingly a deterrent to parents serving as governors in schools?

Nick Gibb: I agree totally. The responsibilities involved in becoming a school governor are very onerous. It is understandable that people shy away from taking them on. Even among those who do take them on, many find themselves having to lean on the head teacher of a school, which is not what is meant to happen. They are meant to be independent of the head and responsible for the head's conduct. In practice, though, even the chairman or chairwoman of the board of governors tends to lean too much on the head teacher.
	Perhaps it does not matter if our state schools are unaccountable for their performance. Perhaps the British state education system is the envy of the world. Perhaps the public are wrong when they consistently put education in the top three of their concerns. Perhaps parents are wrong to be concerned about the quality of their local schools. After all, Ministers are fond of citing the programme for international student assessment study of 2000, which showed British 15-year-olds fourth in science, seventh in English and eighth in maths among all the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. They also cite the progress in the international reading literacy study report, showing us third in reading.
	Perhaps, however, it is just always in the interests of Education Ministers, of either party, to trumpet the achievements of our education system and overlook its deficiencies. They overlook the fact that 23 per cent. of adults in Britain cannot read the dosage on an aspirin bottle, compared with 7 per cent. in Sweden. They overlook the fact that 23 per cent. of adults in Britain cannot add 50 and two, and that 17 per cent. of 11-year-olds leave primary school unable to read at level 4 while 37 per cent. cannot write properly.
	Perhaps it is in the interests of the education establishment to overlook the fact that in all OECD international studies in which Britain participates, we have a much lower participation rate than other countries have. In fact, the 2003 PISA survey was interestingly omitted from the Secretary of State's speech; perhaps that is because that survey had such a low participation rate36 per cent. of the schools in the sample refused to take partthat the OECD refused to include the results in the tabulation. Had the figures been included, the UK would have ranked eighteenth out of 41 countries. PISA 2003 is consistent with previous international studies, such as the trends in international mathematics and science study, which put England twentieth out of 41 OECD countries. Ministers use only PISA 2000 and PIRLS, which most critics believe are inconsistent and probably flawed, on the basis of even lower participation rates in the case of the 19992000 PISA study and the type of questions asked.
	The Bill is consistent with the general direction of education policy in this country since the late 1950s. As that approach gained strength over 50 years, so standards of education gradually declined. Attempts to reverse the decline have sometimes led to improvements, but the tide gradually turns again, and we are seeing the tide turning now for inspections. The literacy hour is regarded as a huge success, resulting in a rise in achievement, with standards rising from 56 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieving level 4 in 1996 to 77 per cent. now. But Professor Timms, of Durham university, who has conducted standardised reading tests over a large number of primary schools throughout those years has shown that there has been no significant improvement in literacy over that period, merely better teaching to the tests.
	I do not believe that any Administration will be able to tackle the root problems with our education system until it is prepared to engage with and challenge many of the fundamental tenets of education orthodoxy that dominate policy making today. We need more accountability, not less, which the weakened inspection system introduced by the Bill will produce. We need to move away from assertion-based policy making to evidence-based policy. Ministers need to advise themselves that the current national literacy strategy approach to reading is the best that we can provide for our children. They need to look at the Clackmannanshire study, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred. They need to talk to the proponents of synthetic phonics, to visit the schools that have transformed their teaching of reading and to talk to the heads of those schools to hear what they have to say about what they have achieved and how. They need to see what change is needed and to ensure that it is delivered in our schools. An Ofsted inspection system that reduces the quantum of information from schools, which will be inevitable with a light-touch, two-day inspection, places more of an onus on Ministers to research the issues and to look at research. For example, research from Kulik and Kulik in the United States shows dramatic improvements in educational attainment from streaming at secondary school level when the curriculum is tailored to the ability grouping.
	Until the Government are prepared to tackle those issues, we will see no real improvements in educational attainment in this country. Reports will be published, there will be spin about statistics, and exam grades will be inflated to prove that standards are improving, but we will see no genuine improvement in standards. We will see more Bills like this one, more reports like the Tomlinson report and, above all, British school leavers will fail in the international job market to command the income and living standards that a more rigorous education would have granted them.

Mark Francois: I am pleased to contribute to this debate, because the Bill touches on a number of important issues, including inspections, teacher training and the development and supply of reports from schools to other bodies. Like all hon. Members here this evening, I recognise the importance of education for the future of our young people and thus for the country. I also appreciate and value the efforts of those who work in education, and I hope to raise a number of specific issues on their behalf this afternoon.
	I am pleased to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box, but I am surprised to see that the Labour Benches behind him are entirely empty.
	Like many Members of Parliament, I take a close interest in the schools in my constituency, all of which may be affected by the Bill, but in varying degrees. For example, its effect on secondary and primary schools may be slightly different and I shall speak about that later.
	Shortly after I was elected to Parliament in 2001, I set myself the challenge of visiting all the schools in my constituency, and I completed that task earlier this year. Of the 38 schools there, four are secondary schoolsSweyne Park and FitzWimarc in the town of Rayleigh, Greensward college in Hockley and William de Ferrers in South Woodham Ferrersall very good schools. There is one special school, Ramsden Hall in Ramsden Heath, and 33 other infant and/or junior schools, most of which are very good. Two schools are in special measures, although at least one, which I had the privilege of visiting only recently, should soon be re-emerging from that status under new and dynamic leadership.
	During my visits to schools I try to chat to both staff and pupils and to have a detailed discussion with the head teacher, which includes some of the issues that we are discussing this evening. In that context, it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who has taken a great interest in these issues for a number of years. If I may say so without embarrassing him, that was evident from the quality of his speech.
	On a personal note, my late mother, Anna Francois, worked for many years as a school dinner lady, so I often pop into the kitchen and try to talk to the kitchen staff to see how they are getting on. I hope that you will forgive me that small indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The most revealing part of those trips has often been when I have been able to visit the staff room at break time, ask the staff to raise any issues of concern and give them an opportunity to Jeremy Paxman their Member of Parliament. A number of them have not been shy of taking advantage of that opportunity. On behalf of the teachers and heads I have spoken to, I would like to ask the Minister a number of specific questions, and I hope that he will provide some direct replies.
	The Bill has much to say about the inspection of schools against the national curriculum. I shall criticise the Government on a number of issuesfor example, the lack of well-defined history lessons, which has featured in the media recently. However, in fairness and to be non-partisan, I give them credit for the emphasis that they have placed on citizenship in the national curriculum, which has all-party support, and I am sure that we are all in favour of school councils to teach children the value of democracy in action.
	Like many other Members of Parliament, I have spoken at a number of school assemblies on the roles and duties of MPs, and I confess that I have faced some challenging questions. I have encouraged schools to visit the Palace of Westminster to see our process in action. I genuinely believe that that is important, particularly in an age of falling voter turnout and when there are some people at the extremes of the political spectrum with ugly politics and for whom the democratic process is anathema.
	We must encourage our young people to be proud of their history, heritage and traditions, including the evolution of the mother of Parliaments. Whoever they vote for in future is their business, but it is crucial to teach them the value of our democratic system, for all its imperfections, so that they do not take it for granted. I really believe that.
	Perhaps more contentiously, I want to make a number of points about the inclusion agenda, which part 4 of the Bill touches on. I have discussed the inclusion issue in detail during a number of my school visits, and unfortunately the Government's approach is not working. Most of the staff I spoke to were sympathetic to the principle of trying to include children with challenges, whether medical or behavioural, in mainstream education. Again and again, they pointed out that this is a matter of degree and of providing sufficient resources to make such arrangements viable. In practice, that often means providing a full-time teaching assistant to keep an eye on a challenged child, which many schools cannot afford and the local education authority is often unable to fund.
	Moreover, it was put to me repeatedly that there are some children who because of their persistent bad behaviour are simply not suitable for mainstream education. I was given several examples, in several different schools, of children who were so disruptive that they effectively undermined the education of the other 29 children in the classroom, as the teacher and perhaps the supporting teaching assistantif there was onespent far too much time trying to control the one child, to the detriment of all the others. Several teachers said to me that when they had such a child in their classroom, they spent the whole lesson wondering when he or she was going to start playing up, and knowing that at that point the lesson would, effectively, be terminated. Even worse, the head teacher then often has to spend an inordinate amount of time liaising with the parents of the child and the LEA over a single case, as well as dealing with complaints from the other parents who that feel their children are missing out.
	Ministers have to accept that there are some children whose behaviour is so severe that they simply cannot be accommodated in mainstream schooling, and no amount of political correctness or soft-soaping can overcome that. That comes directly from several heads and teachers in my constituency, and I hope that the Minister will take my word for it. I believe that it is better to confront the issue honestly, and thus I favour our policy of turnaround schools, which will focus on educating those resource-intensive children who have real behavioural problems in schools that are optimised to deal with those problems. That would have the additional benefit of allowing teachers in mainstream schools to get on and teach the well-behaved pupils in their classrooms. We do a disservice to the teachers, the well-behaved pupils and the children with the real problems if we try to pretend that the situation does not exist and to muddle through. We have to accept the world as it is, not as the politically correctI do not include myself in their numberwould like it to be.
	The Bill touches on the issue of bureaucracy, but it fails to confront it head on. I have sat in staff rooms and asked teachers and teaching assistants, If there was one thing about the education system that you could change, what would it be? Almost without exception, the answer is the paperwork. There is now so much paperwork that many teachers find it genuinely dispiriting. I hope to convey that to the Minister this evening. More than one in three newly qualified teachers now leave the profession within the first two years, many of them citing bureaucracy as their reason for quittingalthough many now also cite indiscipline.
	Many of those who remain in the profession are becoming increasingly fed up with writing internal reports that they believe no one will ever read anyway. One deputy head I spoke to at one of my rural schools said she was planning to include the names Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck in several of her forthcoming returns to the LEA to see whether anyone would notice. However, the whole system of depressing bureaucracy was best put to me on a doorstep in Ashingdon a few years ago during an evening canvass, when I spoke to one teacher who made the point to me so bluntly that I have never forgotten it. She said, Look, if I had wanted to be an accountant, I would have trained for that, but I didn'tI wanted to teach kids. I am a professional, so just let me get on with my job. That has stayed with me ever since.
	Ministers keep making ritualistic gestures towards reducing form-filling, but the blizzard of DFES circulars keeps coming. We are losing good people from the teaching professionand it is a professionbecause teachers are getting fed up. Ministers crow about the much vaunted 10 per cent. of non-contact time, but who will take the lessons in the teachers' place? I acknowledge that teaching assistants do a good job, but they are not qualified teachers. If I were a parent, I would not be happy with the suggestion that 10 per cent. of my child's maths lessons would not be taken by a teacher, because the teacher had to go away and fill in forms instead. Perhaps the Minister could say how the new arrangements will work, because that is a concern in several schools that I have visited in the past year.
	Head teacher work load is also an issue, and it will not be materially reduced by the 128 clauses of the Bill. The head teacher has to cope with more bumf than any other member of staff, especially in primary schools. With perhaps only a small senior management team to share the work load, the pressure on the head teacher is often very substantial. One primary school head explained that to me by writing out, off the top of her head, a list of all the plans and strategies that she had to produce, in addition to the everyday task of running her school. I kept her list and I have it here. It includes an overall primary strategy, which seems fair enough; a physical education/sport initiative, as part of a local sports partnership with other schools; a plan for e-confident schools; a healthy schools plan; an inclusion strategy; a modern foreign languages strategy; a work force remodelling plan; a work load initiative plan, including arranging and staffing non-contact time; a wraparound care plan; an initial extended schools plan; a school leadership and management restructuring plan; and a travel plan.
	That is a dozen different plans and strategies, each one in response to another bright idea from the Government, and each one requiring additional work by, primarily, the head teacher. I am not convinced that we really require all that information, but if we do, why could there not be just one overall school plan, for which each plan I have listed could be a separate annexe? That would mean less work and is a point that head teachers have put to me repeatedly. When I was in the Army, we were told that there could only ever be one plan at one time, because anything else led to confusion. That is also a reasonable maxim in this context. Many head teachers feel that they are drowning in paperwork and I am not convinced that the Bill will address that problem on the scale required, although I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to offer.
	In my tour of local schools over the past four years, I have been to a number of wonderful schools. As just one example, the rendition of the Well Done Song at Riverside junior school in Hullbridge will live in my memory for ever. I shall not attempt to reproduce it for the House this evening, but it was a sight to behold. However, I have also found a number of heads, teachers and even teaching assistants who are fighting what they see as a losing battle against bureaucracy, and many of them are becoming dispirited as a result. Most of them joined the profession in the first place because they had a burning desire to educate children.
	The best thing that Ministers can do to re-enthuse those people is to stop second-guessing them and get out of their way. They should be able to concentrate on what they came into teaching for in the first placeto teach children. I hope that the Minister will accept that I have tried not to be partisan tonight, but to focus on some problems that have been raised directly with me. I believe that our plans for education would address many of those points more effectively than the Government's offerings, but I wish to hear the Minister's response, so that I can pass it back to some of those who have raised issues with me.

David Rendel: I was delighted to hear some cross-party agreement breaking out today after the shenanigans of last week in both Houses of Parliament. I was pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that his party intends to support the Bill. It is right to do so, even though some aspects of it are not yet perfect. It was amusing to hear that the Conservatives now have a potted plant policy. By eradicating a few potted plants, they intend to eradicate all the woes of the public services. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
	Some aspects of the Bill that focus on accountability appear to work in one direction, but others appear to work in the opposite direction. The Bill suggests that more academies will be introduced. However, it is odd that a Bill that seeks to introduce greater accountability for what happens in education should also propose further academies, for which a sponsor who puts in 2 million can attract some 24 million of public money. That means that the sponsor will have an 8 per cent. stake, as against a public stake of 92 per cent., but will have 100 per cent. control. To what extent will the public have the right to ensure that their wishes for such a school are properly considered? Where will the accountability lie?
	In May, the Government will back a conference entitled Schools at the Heart of the Community, the stated aim of which is to explore the role that schools can play in community empowerment and regeneration. I find it difficult to reconcile that aim with the whole idea of academies. The public will put in most of the finance, but where is the accountability for how the academies will be run?
	Other provisions in the Bill appear to take power away from the local education authority and hand it to the Secretary of State. For example, clauses 67 and 102 both give the Secretary of State extra powers to impose requirements on an LEA, rather than allowing it greater autonomy to make its own decisions on behalf of the people whom it represents. Some aspects of the Bill would cut schools off from their local community moorings, but those are very important. We should try to ensure that schools are accountable to their local communities as far as possible.
	In respect of the provisions that apply to Wales and the Welsh Assembly, however, the opposite seems to be true. The Government seem to be attempting to reduce the cold hand of central Government and strengthen local accountability by giving more power to the Welsh Assembly. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) is delighted to welcome those aspects of the Bill, especially those that address the danger to small rural schoolsindeed, to small schools generally. I, too, very much welcome those provisions, and in particular clause 70, which was inserted by the Lords with Conservative and Liberal Democrat support, and I hope that the Government will see fit to leave it in the Bill.
	Last year, I made it my job to visit all the small rural schools in my constituency because I was aware that there was a problem with falling rolls. Demography creates that, even in an area such as mine where the population in general is growing. We are an attractive area and there is a lot of employment, so many people want to move to west Berkshire, but although the population is growing the number of children born each year is still going down. Falling rolls in some of the small rural primary schools have led to low numbers, which has an effect in terms not only of the school's financial viability but, perhaps even more important, of its educational viability. If a school gets too small, with only one or two teachers, the full scope of the national curriculum may not be properly delivered.
	In my area, as in many areas, schools form federations to share teaching staff and facilities. That can overcome some of the problems, and I am happy to say that my local authority is doing its utmost to ensure that all the small rural schools are kept open. So far, it has been successful, but the problem is increasing. Numbers are falling every year and will continue to fall for a few years more. I am pleased that clause 70 has been included, as it gives rights to the local community so that at least it can be consulted properly about whether a small rural school should close.
	Nearly 12 years ago, I made my maiden speech in the House. I do not pretend to remember it word for word. I suspect that some Members in the Chamber today were not here on that occasion, and even if they had been they probably would not remember it word for word either. However, I certainly remember what it was aboutthe problem of the closure of rural post offices. Closures of rural schools and rural post offices have similar effects. Both institutions often play a critical part in the village community and village life. Sadly, when one or other closes, and certainly if both close, the community may collapse, leaving only rich people or those who have a second home in the village, because it is so difficult for poorer people to remain, especially if they do not have their own transport, as so little public transport is left in some rural areas. That is certainly the case in west Berkshire, as well as elsewhere.
	There is an inherent danger in the Bill if parents have greater rights to choose popular schools, which may expand and take in extra children. There could be two village schools of more or less equal quality, but one might be slightly more popular than the otherfor good or not-so-good reasonsso there is a danger that a few of the richer parents from the village whose school is marginally less good may decide to move their children to the school in the next village. They can take up that option because they can drive the children to the school in the next village in their 4x4 vehicles, leaving a decreasing population in the other village until finally the school is no longer viable. That is to the huge detriment of the poorer people in that village. They do not have transport to take their children to the next village and life could become extremely difficult for them.
	There are reasons for taking an overall view of education throughout a community area to allow for the maintenance, as far as possible, of a local community primary school in each local community. That can have huge benefits, which may, for the whole community, over the whole LEA area, outweigh people's understandable wish to choose a school that has become a bit more popular, simply because they are wealthy enough to take advantage of that choice.
	Schools go up and down quickly. I am sure that all of us have seen examples in our area of a school that has become unpopular and not as good as it was suddenly being turned round by the arrival of a new head teacher. That can often make a huge difference to a school. A school that was beginning to fail and become unpopular can find that situation reversed and quickly grow again. However, if we follow the principle that the Bill seems to enunciate, we may endanger some schools by allowing other local schools that have become popular over a short period, because of a good head teacher, to expand quickly and take children from the less popular schools. Schools could become non-viable when simply putting in a good new teacher might be enough to reverse the situation. I certainly do not want to see the closure of my smaller rural schools, which might be the result if we were to go ahead purely with the Government's proposals and would certainly be the case if clause 70 were removed, as I fear the Government may be threatening. It is all very well for rich parents, but not so good for those who are poor. We have to protect the whole of our community, not just those who have the power and wealth to go where they choose.
	There is much that is right in the Bill, but some things seem to be working in contradiction to one another. The Government need to reconsider some of them, perhaps in Committee, if the Bill gets that far, where we could then iron out some of its contradictory aspects.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have this rather unexpected opportunity to speak in the debate. I have a great interest in education in general, and in some of these matters in particular, as at one time I was a teacher. I taught A-level economics and politics, although in further education rather than in a school, and it was an interesting experience. Many of my close relatives are or have been teachers at various levels. I have a close involvement with all the schools and colleges in my constituency and I am vice-chair of the governors of our sixth-form college. I also spend an hour or so every year teaching a class myself, so I have some feel for what is happening on the ground, rather than just speaking from the lofty heightsthe ivory towerof Parliament.
	For many years, I have been concerned about what is going wrong in British education. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistics on educational achievement in Britain show a pattern different from that in any other country. The top 10 per cent. of our students do extremely well and compare with the best in the world, yet the bottom 30 per cent. of our pupils are near the bottom of the table. Our average puts us at a reasonable level in the OECD table, but our extremes are at opposite ends, and the bottom third is of most concern.
	When I was in teaching, inspection was not good. I entered teaching with a degree but no teaching qualification. When I was inspected, the vice-principal came in for half an hour and his only comment was that my writing on the board was untidy. That was not news to me, as I have always struggled with writing. That was the extent of the criticism of my teaching. Fortunately, I got good results and my pupils made complimentary remarks about my teaching relative to that of some of my colleagues. That was the nearest I got to proper inspectioninspection by my pupils rather than by a professional from outside.
	Inspectors were of various types. The teaching philosophy at the time was for informal methods, which had the education system by the throatnot a good idea, in my view. One of my associates taught in a very formal way, and when he was aware that the inspector was coming he got his pupils to put their desks into little groups and asked them to talk to each other while the inspector was in the room. The inspector thought that was splendid, but when he went away the teacher said, Put your desks back in lines, be quiet and listen to me. The inspector was unaware that the teacher taught formally. That teacher was extremely popular with parents, because pupils learned much more in his class than in some of the other classes. So inspection was perfunctory and not very good. Some of the philosophies that were peddled by inspectors in those days clearly led to some of today's problems.
	Behaviour was not considered a serious problem in those days. We have lived to regret that, because we have developed a culture of boisterous behaviour in schools, to say the least. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) drew our attention to that fact. We now have to deal with that and row back from allowing classroom behaviour to get out of hand. When I was first elected, I suggested to a junior Education Minister that we should deal with such behaviour in the classroom, but the Minister said that that would be too prescriptive.
	I am glad that my hon. Friends who now sit on the Front Bench have a different view and that we are looking at classroom behaviour. I do not know whether this is true for other hon. Members, but I could never learn well in a boisterous, noisy atmosphere. I learned better in a quiet and orderly atmosphere. That sounds old-fashioned, but it seems obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense. However, that was not the situation in many schools for many years, and most teachers found it difficult to cope with that.
	Primary and secondary schools in my constituency have had problems. Four schools have been in special measures, but they have come out of them because of the efforts of some superb head teachers and some very good teachers. Many of them have moved towards a more traditional approach to teaching, which has been beneficial. I shall dwell on one school in particular, which was not in special measures but was not a star performer, although it was still a good school. It was part of the three-year pilot scheme for inclusion units, whereby pupils who misbehaved or found it difficult to behave themselves in class were taken out of the class and put into the inclusion unit, where they received perhaps one-to-one teaching until such time as they felt able to return to the classroom and behave.
	This year, that school was listed as one of the 100 most improved schools in the country, and it is not improbable that the inclusion unit had an effect. Pupils who had difficulties behaving themselves in class were taken out immediately so that the teacher could get on and teach the other pupils, and when they felt better about things they could return to the classroom. That has made a difference. It is a fine school with a wonderful head teacher. I go there regularly, and it is a delight to see that it has done so well this year.
	I am glad that, under clause 44, the Government are rowing back a little from declaring too easily that schools are failing. The category for schools that look likely to fail will be removed, and in future only when schools are really failing will they be categorised as such. That is wise. As I have told Ministers in the past, we should not label schools before they get into difficulties but should be aware that they are not performing well and get resources into them early on, to start to improve them long before they start to fail. I want to press Ministers to take that approach: to look at schools that are not performing well, to put in resources and to make sure that those schools have the right management and head teachers, even if we have to pay them a little more and give them a premium for teaching in difficult areas, to ensure that those schools improve.
	The market approach of letting a lot of schools compete with one another and allowing some to fail and some to succeed is not only divisive but expensive and wasteful. I would prefer the resources go into making every school in the country a good school. That is not just a fair but an efficient way forward, and it would cost a lot less public money.
	What causes the problems in schools? Many problems relate to social divisions. Sadly, Britain is still a socially divided societymuch more so than the continent of Europe. We have had an enormous variety of schools since the second world wargrammar, secondary modern, comprehensive, technical and faithand each area now has a hierarchy of schools that reinforces those social divisions rather than cutting across them.
	I have suggested to my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, who recently left the Chamber, that if we approached education by producing a balance of population in every school and ensuring that every school is a good school, we might start to address those social divisions and divisions in education and make some progress in bringing Britain together as a society, as well as improving the educational performance of those at the bottom who have been doing less well.
	At the moment, we have hierarchies of schools, even in areas with a good education system, such as my constituency. Some schools are in areas with relatively poor living standards where people face a degree of deprivation. Of course, children from those areas perform less well at school. In other areas, we have magnet schools that are targeted by middle-class people, who move into the area and push up house prices. There is a little enclave of middle-class families, with middle-class children going to middle-class schools, and they all do very well. That is fine for them, but it is not fine for the 30 per cent. who do not do so well.
	We must deal with that problem and try to achieve a balanced population in schools. In most urban areas, that would not be too difficult because the distances involved are not great. When I taught 35 years ago, comprehensivisation was starting and there was an attempt to ensure a balance-of-ability range in theschools in some areas. Pupils were roughly categorised at the age of 11 into As, Bs, Cs and Ds. There was no 11-plus, but an attempt was made to ensure that schools had a balanced population.
	In those circumstances, a genuine comparison could be made between schools that were performing well and those that were performing badly. Value-added measures, as well as different teaching methods, could be compared in each school, and inspectors could make a proper assessment of how well certain forms of teaching were succeeding. If we do not do that, we will continue with a hierarchy of schools, which is socially and educationally damaging, thus reinforcing the social divisions that are so uncomfortable and disagreeable in our society.
	We want to avoid any kind of segregation along racial lines as well as those of social class. We also want a nice mixture of people in each school. Certainly in my constituency, most schools are like that. There is a tendency for one school to take more pupils from one community than another, but there is a mixture in each school nevertheless. I want that mixture to include the whole community.
	Finally, I want to discuss patterns of school provision in different areas.

Mark Francois: We all know that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to faith schools, such as Church of England schools, even though they are overwhelmingly popular with parents. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that he opposes faith schools as well?

Kelvin Hopkins: The reality is that we decided to include faith schools in the Education Act 1944with Catholic schools, Church of England schools and Jewish schoolsand that pattern cannot be changed now. Therefore, it is unfair to tell any community that it cannot have a faith school when there are clearly faith schools in other areas.

John Pugh: I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) cannot know that Liberal Democrats are opposed to faith schools, because that proposition is not true.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information.
	On the general case about faith schools, some may choose to have faith schools, but I hope that we will not see an enormous burgeoning in their number because I like the idea of people from different faiths being educated together. Clearly, some people in certain faiths would not want that to happen. They want to keep faith schools, and they clearly have that right. That will not be changed by any Government of any colour, so it is unfair to say that any community cannot have a faith school.

Angela Watkinson: I happen to be a governor at a Roman Catholic girls secondary school. The school is different because all its pupils are Roman Catholic and it caters only for girls. However, it has a genuinely comprehensive intake, accepting girls from another parish that is much more deprived. In that respect, the school is made up of a mix of pupils from right across the social spectrum. The school's ethos is that parents take a close interest in their children's education, which is one of the most valuable elements in a school community. The school has extremely good results. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman would not deny those parents the choice of such an education for their children.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with just about everything that the hon. Lady has said. My constituency has the largest Roman Catholic primary school in the country, and it is one of the best schools that one could find. There is also a large 11-to-18 Catholic secondary school. It is first class and does a wonderful job for pupils in my area. I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that, for many years, the overwhelming majority of pupils at such schools came from Irish backgrounds. That is no longer the case because Roman Catholics from the Congo, the Philippines and many countries in eastern Europe have come to my constituency. There has been a wonderful flowering of multicultural education, even in Catholic schools. People learn about each other's cultures, and it is nice to see a faith that covers different communities from different parts of the world and that allows people to understand each other. That is a great advance. I do no not want faith to reinforce the other divisions that exist in our country, and the position is starting to change.
	We have faith schools and they will continue, but I do not want an enormous variety of other schools to be set up to compete against each other. Rather, society, the Government and all of us should make sure that every school is a good school and that no school is allowed to fail.

Angela Watkinson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants levelling up and not levelling down to the lowest common denominator.

Kelvin Hopkins: Precisely. The way to level up is to find the problems and build up those schools. That has happened in my constituency and across the country. It is to the Government's credit that they have taken that approach. They have looked at the schools that are not doing well and have put in extra resources to start to bring them up. That requires rigorous inspection and a sensible approach to the teaching philosophy.
	I speak with a little knowledge of this subject, but some teaching philosophies in the past were mistaken. We have been through an era in which extremely informal methods in certain areas caused serious problems. Such methods might be fine for people from enriched middle-class backgrounds who have houses full of books. I was one of them; I had great advantages. The hon. Lady may know of Millfield, which is a private boarding school that some colleagues may have gone to. A television programme about the school said how wonderful, informal and relaxed it was. The pupils called the teachers by their first names and it was meant to epitomise informal teaching and the relaxed approach to education. However, the school allowed in only a minority of the populationas determined by moneyand, even then, pupils had to be interviewed. Only people with a certain type of personality were allowed into the school, so that it could teach in the way that I have described.
	Perhaps I could have been educated by informal methods and done very well. I happen to come from an enriched environment in which I started off with every possible advantage in educational terms. That may not show now, but it certainly did at the time. However, that is not true for the great majority of youngsters who come from ordinary backgrounds. Good schools make the difference for them, so we must make sure that every school is good.
	I was coming to the end of my speech when I took one or two interventions. They have prolonged my speech, but I hope that I have not delayed hon. Members too much. However, I want to point out to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we should not change systems that work well. I urge them to consider the Luton system where we have 11-to-16 high schools and a sixth form college. That system provides the ideal form of secondary education, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate that any other system works as well.
	Such a system works well provided that we have good schools, so it is important to ensure that they have the resources and good staff, and offer quality education. Once that is assured, we can go on to success. I frequently go to the schools in Luton and I am full of admiration for what they do. The teachers are dedicated and the pupils are enthusiastic. There are undoubtedly problems because some pupils come from deprived backgrounds and behaviour here and there is not what it should be, but the schools in Luton, which is not an advantaged area, do brilliantly.
	I urge Ministers not to try to change the systems that we have or, in particular, to insist that we change the system in Luton. They should look at what we do in Luton and think about adjusting secondary education elsewhere to follow our pattern. In particular, I suggest that, in certain areas, a sixth-form college system that pools sixth forms from schools is beneficial to pupils and education in those communities. I hope very much that the Government will consider promoting the sixth-form college model of secondary education in the future. I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I hope that Ministers will take into account some of what I have said.

Andy Reed: I apologise to the House for not being here at the start of the debate, but the Adjournment debate is about education funding in Leicestershire, and I hope to speak in it, so I hope that I will get a double go at talking about the issues. I am grateful for the chance to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). I know that he is a fellow Leicester City supporter so, like me, he will be feeling aggrieved by a late penalty decision in the FA cup.
	I wish to concentrate on two aspects of the Bill. The first is the inspection regime and the second is what are described as the small financial aspects, which I believe do not go far enough. I welcome the Bill as part of the wider package of reforms that were set out in a number of documents: Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, A New Relationship with Schools: Next Steps and the paving document on the learning country and a comprehensive education. Plenty of heavyweight tomes are flying around describing what will happen.
	The Government's stated aims and strategy sound extremely good. They are
	to establish a new relationship between government and schools. The overall purpose of this strategy is to reduce the burden of bureaucracy for schools, freeing up resources within schools, enabling them to concentrate on the core task of delivering high quality education.
	It is on that point that I wish to speak from my experience in Leicestershirenot just as the Member of Parliament for Loughborough but as the parent of a child aged six who started school last year and a daughter who has just started free nursery education for three-year-olds. She will be three this Saturday. I have daily experience as a parent, and as the governor at a local primary school for several years.
	I visited all the 36 schools in my constituency early in my time in Parliament and have maintained a healthy relationship with all the governors and head teachers since then. Unfortunately, events in the House on Friday meant that I was not able to take part in an assembly at Burleigh community college, so I would like to place on the record my apologies to all the students there. They were really looking forward to my entrance with my red nose and red wig. That did not happenmuch to my relief, if not theirs.
	It is important to concentrate on what is happening in schools, and that is why I referred to the Government's aims and strategy for education. Those all sound very laudable, but there are still problems at the grass roots in delivering many of the changes. When Ministers visit schools, the first issue that teachers raise is the paperwork and bureaucracy that goes with teaching these days. Ironically, when my wife was helping out in my local school, only last week, she walked into the staff room and saw a photocopied cutting in bold, large print about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's idea that teachers could give their pupils reports every six weeks. The feedback on that suggestion was probably not the most helpful that we have received. It is important for us to recognise the impact that such measures have on teachers and the enormous amount of excellent work that they do.
	I think that the number of teachers and teaching assistants in Leicestershire has risen by about 400 over the past few years, which is to be welcomed. I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr.   Rendel) spoke about education in his maiden speech 12 years ago. I made my maiden speech on the Bill that contained measures to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, and I am pleased to say that my son, who is at key stage 1 at primary school, is in a class of fewer than 30 pupils. I know that there are 24 children in the class, because I had to take sweets in today to celebrate his birthday last weekend, so I had to count out the right number for each child. Given my interest in nutrition and health, I should have taken in some fruit, but the tradition seems to be taking in sweets or cakes. I hope that we can change that over time.
	I spoke this morning at Loughborough college about a health initiative and felt guilty that I had taken those sweets in. However, I noticed that my pedometer showed that I had already done 9,000 steps by 10 am when I arrived to speak at the meeting. I am now up to 27,500 steps, so I have probably made up for the little packet of sweets that I had this morning with my son. One of the most welcome things that we have managed to introduce is nursery provision for three and four-year-olds, in addition to reduced class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I take my hon. Friend back to his comments about diet? He is visibly one of the healthiest Members in the House, so I am sure that he is interested in recent research showing the impact of pupils' diets on their behaviour in school. Such things as the additives in drinks can affect behaviour, so will he urge our hon. Friends the Ministers to ensure that pupils' diets in schools are appropriate and help them to behave better?

Andy Reed: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is a lot of research showing that not only diet, but health, has such an effect. My son walks to school with us every day. We live at the other end of the village and the walk takes 20 minutes. Research demonstrates clearly that physical activity in the morning has an effect throughout the day. One might have thought that children who were physically active at school came home tired, but research shows that if an activity is combined with a healthy and nutritional diet, their ability to learn throughout the day is lifted and that is maintained after school. When such children leave school, they are thus still physically active and able to play.
	Although this matter is not covered by the Bill, an amendment relating to it was moved in the House of Lords. I would like the amount of training in physical education given to primary school teachers, especially, to increase. Primary school teachers receive an average of seven or eight hours' such training during their course. Many of us who are interested in sport and physical activity would like the amount of such training to increase to 30 hours, as the amendment would have provided, because physical education is a key area in which we need to generate primary school pupils' interest. Teachers often lack confidence in delivering physical education because of a lack of training, but if there were sufficient training, children's activity rates could be increased at an early age, to help them to continue such activity throughout their time at school.

Clive Efford: May I take my hon. Friend back to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on diet and school meals? Schools in my constituency are currently subjected to the Jamie Oliver treatment, because Greenwich schools feature in his Channel 4 programme. He has been able to demonstrate clearly that the standard of school meals has declined considerably over time under compulsory competitive tendering. He was also able to demonstrate that the diets of children at home are crucial, so we should not forget that. I encourage Jamie Oliver to take on supermarkets about the foods that they encourage parents to buy for children as well, because the problem does not begin and end at the school gate.

Andy Reed: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I was a sponsor of the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on food advertising, especially that directed at children under 12. My licence fee to the BBC is worth while for CBeebies and CBBC alone, because I think that it was nearly five and a half years before my son saw an advert and started clamouring for things. The fact that BBC broadcasting is free of advertising makes an enormous difference. I would like some control of the products that supermarkets are able to sell and the activities that they may carry out.
	The Government document on increasing physical activity and tackling our nutritional problems that was published last week is one of the most important that we have seen, but unfortunately it was slightly lost due to the coverage of what was happening in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right to say that there is little point addressing children's school meals at lunchtime if they go home and eat meals high in fat, salt and sugar in the evening. Diet is important in general, not only an aspect of schooling. As my hon. Friend knows, this country's obesity levels are increasing greatly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an interesting discussion, but I think that we are departing from the terms of the Bill.

Andy Reed: I am grateful for your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not be led astray by my hon. Friends.
	I wanted to link what I was saying to an important point about the inspection of schools that came out of this morning's discussion. The matter has also been considered by the Health Committee. We are clear about what we know about children's educational and academic attainment through inspection, but we do not know enough about the physical activity that they are undertaking. I would like the opportunity to discuss the matter in Committee, because I would welcome the return of something along the lines of the health check. It would not be like the traditional health check that we lost 20 years ago, but a way of examining children's health by measuring their body mass index, and perhaps other aspects of their health.
	The main aspects of the Bill that I want to talk about are the inspection and finance regimes. I know from being a governor about the work and stress caused by the current inspection system, and I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber are aware of that. I was a governor of Sileby Highgate school in 1997 and we had an inspection several months after I was elected to the House. The whole regime seemed to revolve around ensuring that all the paperwork was in the right place to demonstrate that the paperwork was in the right place, rather than showing what the school was like on an average day. Since the inspection in 1997, I have argued for something along the lines of the system proposed in the Bill. Most teachers to whom I have spoken would prefer such a system. Shorter, sharper and more frequent inspections would be appropriatebut to go a little further, perhaps there should be no notice of when inspections will occur, especially if they are short. The preparation period for an inspection seems to be the most stressful time, because people have to try to ensure that everything is in place.
	I agreed with the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr.   Francois) when he talked about the number of plans and other documents that must be in place for an inspection. The walls of staff rooms tend to be covered with plans and documents, but one must wonder when they were last taken down from the shelf and referred to. I am sure that good teachers and heads read them regularly and know them off by heart, but to be realistic, I worry that the fact that there are so many such documents causes extra strain and pressure for teachers, because they must ensure that they are up to date.

Mark Francois: It was good of the hon. Gentleman to amplify the point that I made earlier, which shows that hon. Members on both sides of the House encounter such problems in their schools, and I was not making a partisan point. Does he agree that teachers, and especially heads, find it annoying that they spend a great deal of time producing those plans, but seldom get much feedback on them? They are not sure that the documents have even been read by the people to whom they send them.

Andy Reed: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. When I go into schools, the heads are usually proud to show me their in-trays and the number of circulars that they have received that week alone. I show them a photo on my phone of the daily post that I receive here, so that I can say, Snap. Both heads and Members experience information overload, so we probably know how heads feel.
	A further problem is how the standards fund and other funding streams for schools require an application process, which causes a great deal of concern. Schools that are good at applying and have been successful do not mind putting in bids, but schools with a history of being unsuccessful stay outside the regimethey do not want to keep applying. Even where large sums are availableI am thinking of the New Opportunities Fund round of funding for school sports facilitiesmany schools have been put off making an application. By simplifying the process, we could give schools that do not normally applyperhaps because they have been rejected a couple of times and have become discouragedthe feeling that they are part of the system, and the confidence to apply in future.
	The big problem, as my hon. Friend the Minister knowsand will learn more about later during the Adjournment debateis the funding mechanism. On17 February, the Department circulated a consultation document on the new school funding arrangements. I am grateful for what it contains. The Bill provides for technical changes to implement one of its positive measuresthree-year funding guaranteed in advance. Everyone involved in school financial planning knows that among the greatest difficulties are being unable to plan more than a year or two ahead, not knowing pupil numbers, and not knowing what is likely to happen. Three-year planning would make an enormous difference, and is to be welcomed. The document also mentions ring-fenced grants for schools via local authorities, which is also welcome, and the new single standards grant. The latter addresses the problem that I mentioned earlier by simplifying and streamlining the process of applying for the standards-related funding streams for schools. It will make an enormous difference.
	None the less, in Leicestershire the problem of the funding formula remains. I shall not bore my hon. Friend the Minister with the details, because he will have to listen to them again later, but in Leicestershire the school funding formula causes enormous problems because of the way in which it operates and the weighting given to the various elements of the regime. The Bill and the consultation document rightly suggest that the current formula has improved the transparency of the process, but it does not go far enough in terms of adjusting the weightings. The formula is only a part of the overall funding for education in Leicestershire. We welcome the extra capital funding that has come to our area; the figure used to be 2 million a year, but is now running at 32 million a year. That has made an enormous difference.

Andrew Robathan: My Leicestershire neighbour is being incredibly loyal by coming to speak in this debate when he is to speak later about education funding in Leicestershire, but does the hon. Gentleman not think that he is being over-loyal with regard to the new funding formula? According to Leicestershire county council and the teachers with whom I have spoken, the proposed new funding formula will make matters worse in Leicestershire, which, as he is well aware, is the worst-funded education authority in the country.

Andy Reed: Having worked at county hall and on the funding formula in the past, I would like to see the evidence for that assertion. I am sure that the Minister will tell us later how the new formula will work. Generally, however, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we in Leicestershire have seen a funding increase of more than 800 per pupil per year. I worked at Leicestershire county council and was a governor from 1992 to 1997, and I remember a real-terms decrease in spending in Leicestershirewe saw cuts, cuts and cuts. I acknowledge that although we have made some advances, the formula does not mean that we have done as well as we would like to. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I can do some cross-party work to ensure that the technical problem is resolved. He will know that the funding formula that the Conservatives propose to keep is not dissimilar to those in the Bill and the consultation document

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I am sure that the whole House is looking forward with keen anticipation to the debate on the Adjournment, we really must not hold it now.

Andy Reed: That is a real shame, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to expose the Tories' intentions regarding the education funding formula and their cuts. The idea that pupil passports would generate improvements to schools in Leicestershire, such as the one that my son attends, is a fallacy that needs exposing. Although the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and I have achieved cross-party agreement on the need to improve the funding formula, I assure him that we do not agree about the Tories' record on funding in Leicestershire or on their proposals to cut funding from schools such as my son's.
	I raise this issue because the Bill provides a golden opportunity that must not be missed. As it makes progress, the funding formula will be discussed. Although it is welcome that one of the clauses makes an improvement, with three-year funding, I hope that we can also examine the way in which the formula worksthe weighting given to core funding per pupil relative to the area cost adjustment and the deprivation and sparsity elements. We need improvements to the formula if we are to build on the massive improvements that have been made in education in Leicestershire since 1997. I urge Ministers to pay heed to the representations made by the F40 group and other heads with whom I am working to put together a Loughborough schools response to the proposals.
	I urge my the Minister for School Standards to go a little further in respect of school inspectionsto make them lighter and easier, but more informative to parentsand to examine more closely what we can do about the funding formula. However, I also draw his attention to a piece of research conducted by the London School of Economics that concluded last year. It showed that what goes on in education funding, and whether a child is from a middle-class or a working-class family, matter less than the extent to which a child's parents are actively involved with that child's education. That is the single most important factor in a child's educational attainment. We can do everything we can to improve what happens in schools, but unless parents are genuinely involved in their children's education, we will not be able to achieve much.
	I am therefore disappointed by a specific measure in the Bill to get rid of the annual meeting of parents and governors. I can understand the reason for the measureparents do not turn up. My school has run such meetings and the ratio of governors to parents has been about 5:1

John Pugh: Good ratio.

Andy Reed: It did not feel like it on the evening, given all the work that had gone into the meetings. That sort of thing is a sad reflection of the problems facing schools. I urge the Minister to consider how we can rebuild the relationship between parents and schools. It does not have to entail lots of paperwork. We just generally need to involve parents in their children's education.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to catch your eye during the latter stages of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure the House that I shall be brief

Andrew Robathan: Hear, hear.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased that my hon. Friend is so happy to hear that.
	The Bill is a big Christmas-tree measure comprising 128 clauses and 19 schedules. Having read the explanatory notes, I am pleased to know that it is not likely to reach the statute book. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken in some detail about the problems of bureaucracy, targets and paperwork in today's education system. Anyone who has visited local schools and talked to head teachers can be in no doubt about the amount of paperwork with which they have to deal and the time they have to spend on ittime that they do not spend in the classroom where they ought to be.
	There are one or two good parts of the Billthere need to be, because many elements of today's education system are unacceptable. There are many good schools in the CotswoldsI am sure that there are many throughout the countrybut the system as a whole is failing this nation. One million children still play truant every year, and 35,000 children leave school with 1 GCSE or less. We still have a shocking situation in which three out of 11 children leave school without adequate arithmetic or reading skills, which has led to 10 per cent. of our work force or 2.6 million people lacking the skills that they need to do their job, as was recently revealed by a survey of 76,000 employers.
	That is a poor situation for one of the most advanced modern economies in the world. One would expect the Bill to rectify those problems, particularly the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy, but I am afraid that it does exactly the reverse. I shall quote verbatim paragraph 231 of the explanatory notes on clause 114, because if it represents the sort of gobbledygook that we are going to get from the Department for Education and Skills, heaven help our education system. It is headed Supply of information about school workforce, and I shall test the Minister afterwards to see if he understands it:
	This clause enables regulations to require or authorise the proprietor of a school, a children's services authority in England or Wales or any person prescribed in regulations to supply information (of a kind prescribed by regulations) to the Secretary of State, the Assembly or prescribed persons. The information will primarily be used for statistical analysis and research, but will also be shared between organisations which have an independent legal right to the information. Details of the categories of information and the format in which it will be expected to be supplied will be available in guidance to be placed on the internet. Examples of the type of data to be supplied are date of birth, ethnicity and pay details.
	Can the Minister, without notes from his officials, explain exactly what that means in his winding-up speech?

Clive Efford: rose

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Ah, we are going to get an explanation.

Clive Efford: Would the hon. Gentleman list the items of information that he would not publish?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister will doubtless supply that informationit is not for me to do so. I did not write the Bill or the notes on clauses, but the Minister will surely give a more than adequate explanation of what it all means.
	I welcome one or two things in the Bill, particularly the protection for small rural schools. There are a number of such schools in my constituency and they are vulnerable. Although they may have only one or two teachers and have difficulty in teaching the full curriculum, the dedication of the staff is welcomed by the pupils. As has been said by Members on both sides of the House, they offer a good service to the village, and help to keep it together.
	I also welcome the measures on special schools. It is a pity that it has taken the Government eight years to realise that such schools should only be closed in exceptional circumstances. I used to represent Tewkesbury, which is now the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and includes the excellent Alderman Knight school. Even though that school offers excellent education and steps have been taken to keep it open, it is going to close.
	The real mischief that the Bill will cause only becomes apparent in paragraph 261 on page 45 of the explanatory notes. I am concerned that the Bill will weaken the school inspection regimethe mechanism that provides independent measurement of one school's performance against another. Paragraph 261 states:
	This Part makes changes to school inspections and the inspection of early years education provision. Ofsted anticipates direct savings of at least 10 million per annum in the cost of schools inspections.
	No one would worry too much about that, but the paragraph goes on:
	Ofsted is reorganising to deliver the new inspection regime and this will reduce its staffing levels by some 500 posts.
	Either Ofsted has been grossly inefficientthat is not my perceptionor a cut of that magnitude will decimate the school inspection regime. I should therefore be grateful for an explanation from the Minister. I should also like an explanation about the provisions on excluded pupils. I have referred to the 1 million children who are excluded every year. Paragraph 241 of the explanatory notes says that
	pupils who are excluded from school for a fixed period or are appealing against a permanent exclusion cannot attend a school from which they have been excluded.
	That is self-evident. However, if the Minister would do me the courtesy of listening, the paragraph goes on to say:
	As a result schools cannot direct such excluded pupils to attend alternative educational provision.
	It would be helpful to know why that is the case. The Minister is scowling, so doubtless he will provide an explanation.
	My main concern, however, is about funding for maintained schools and for further and higher education, on which there are a number of provisions in the Bill. Like the area represented by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), Gloucestershire is well within the bottom sector of the F40 group, because it has always been a low-spending authority. It is grossly unfair that one child should receive different funding from another child receiving the same education in broadly similar circumstances in a different part of the country. Whatever the nature of the Government in power, it is about time that we devised a fairer system for funding our children's education. I have long suggested that a basic amount should be allocated to every single primary and secondary child in the country. Thereafter, extra would be given for the normal criteria such as deprivation and so on. The formula would be transparent. That is not the case at the moment, and it is almost impossible for a parent or child to work out why their school has been given a particular amount of funding. It is surely possible to make the funding of schools more transparent.
	As for further and higher education, it is wrong that they should be funded differently from secondary education, as such institutions offer exactly the same A-levels or AS-levels. It is wrong, for example that Cirencester college, an excellent further education college in my constituency, should receive less funding per pupil than a school in the maintained sector. I trust that we will hear something about that in the Chancellor's Budget on Wednesday, but I certainly hope that the Bill will do something to address that difference in funding.

Andy Reed: On the funding formula, we probably agree about the size of the difference between the best and worst funded local authorities. However, how successful has the hon. Gentleman been in convincing his Front Bench team to change the formula, as the Tory proposals seem to be exactly the same as ours? Does he believe that change is possible at all or, like me, does he wish to continue working with the F40 to try to make improvements?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With the greatest humility, may I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman had been here at the beginning of our debate and heard the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), he would have learned a little more about Conservative funding? I know that the hon. Gentleman is very loyal and has come to the Chamber to make a contribution at the last minute, but he has read out a speech for another debate. He was quite rightly ruled out of order by the Chair. While I appreciate his intervention, we all know what the situation is.
	I have said almost enough. I started by talking about bureaucracy and gobbledygook in the Bill, and I should like to end with the same subjects. I refer the Minister to paragraph 218 of the explanatory notes, which says:
	Subsection (4) allows persons specified in subsection (3) to supply information received under this clause from the Inland Revenue, Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland to any of the persons specified in subsection (5) for purposes relating to eligibility for education maintenance allowances.
	As the Inland Revenue is mentioned, will we receive information about people's tax returns? If not, what is being alluded to? The explanatory note continues:
	It also allows those who have received this information to pass it on to those who are actually administering education maintenance allowance schemes. The intention is for the clause to facilitate a single information sharing scheme, enabling the Secretary of State, or any other person specified in subsection (3) to receive information on specific applicants directly from the Inland Revenue and Department for Work and Pensions on behalf of the other administrations and to pass it on to them so that they in turn can pass it on to those administering their education maintenance allowance schemes.
	That may be clear to the Minister, but it is not over-clear to me why the Inland Revenue is involved. I know what the Department is getting at. In relation to free school meals, it is necessary for the Inland Revenue to be involved. I urge caution on the Minister in that regard. Free school meals and parents who are on benefits are a very sensitive matter in schools. It is bad enough for some children to be castigated because they receive free school meals. It is even worse if their parents are to be investigated as to whether the children are entitled to free school meals. If that does happen, it should in no way involve the children. That could be extremely damaging.
	The Bill is not a particularly good one. It does not address the problems of our education system in 2005, which are deep-seated and require solutions. I regret to say that the Bill is not the way to solve them.

Mark Hoban: The debate has been wide ranging. At times the topics covered in speeches from hon. Members on both sides have touched only tangentially on the Bill. That is not surprising, given that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, called it a quiet little Bill, with little of the radicalism of the five-year plan in its content.
	We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Huddersfield, for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), and an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who once again demonstrated his deep knowledge of the education system and his views on how to tackle some of the deep-seated problems facing us. When the Select Committee lands the reports to which its Chairman referred in his opening remarks, it will be interesting to see the conclusions on the teaching of reading in our schools.
	In a wide ranging speech my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) demonstrated his deep knowledge of education based on visits to all the schools in his constituency. He has been assiduous in his visiting, and I shall return to some of his remarks. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke about issues concerning rural schools. As he rightly pointed out, it was the action of Conservative and Liberal peers in the other place that introduced greater safeguards for rural schools in the Bill. We had two late additions to the Government ranksthe hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), who probably gave longer speeches than they expected when they arrived at the House this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) discussed issues of bureaucracy in the Bill.
	I shall touch on some of the comments that hon. Members made, starting with three-year funding. Conservatives welcome the introduction of three-year budgets, which provide much-needed stability for schools. The proposal raises an issue that the hon. Member for Bury, North highlighted in his remarks. He spoke about his metropolitan district council, where the ceiling had been applied when the funding regime changed a couple of years ago. My local authority, Hampshire, has the floor applied to it. The last figures that I saw suggested that if the floor were removed, Hampshire would lose 18 million in funding for its schools. We should be grateful for some clarification from the Minister about how floors and ceilings will be applied when we move to the three-year funding regime.
	The hon. Member for Loughborough gave us a curtain-raiser for the Adjournment debate later. I shall not comment on that, but he echoed the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh about school funding and the arrangements for the transition to the three-year rules. My hon. Friend, in a great display of cross-party consensus with the hon. Member for Loughborough, spoke about bureaucracy in our schools, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. It is a recurrent theme in visits that I make to schools in my constituency and elsewhere.
	Teachers feel burdened by bureaucracy and are worried about the amount of paperwork that they have to sift through. They are concerned about the 12 pages of red tape that hit a teacher's desk every day of the school year. Until we lift the burden of bureaucracy and red tape from our schools, particularly primary schools, head teachers will be diverted from their key task of leading the teaching and learning in our schools and will become accountants, administrators and bureaucrats. We need to move away from that if we are to raise standards in our schools.
	As hon. Members noted, the Bill includes provisions for a change in the relationship between Ofsted and schools. I was rather curious about the comments of the hon. Member for Southport, who welcomed the change in the inspection regime and spoke about Ofsted in almost glowing terms, but I seem to recollect that last week the Liberal Democrats proposed to scrap Ofsted. I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman made no reference to that in his speech. That demonstrates once again that the Liberal Democrats need to be consistent and clear in their messages. Perhaps they will table amendments to that effect in Committee, demonstrating the importance that they attach to standards in education.

John Pugh: If the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks in Hansard tomorrow, he will find that speaking of Ofsted in glowing terms is probably not a fair summary of what I said.

Mark Hoban: And the hon. Gentleman will note, if he reads Hansard carefully tomorrow, that I said almost glowing terms. That does not get away from the key fact that, yet again, he did not talk about his party's plans to abolish Ofsted, so we wait with bated breath to hear in Committee what the Liberals' plans are for Ofsted.
	I shall comment on some changes to the inspection regime and Ofsted. The first is the change to the definition of special measures. The hon. Member for Luton, North commended the weakening of the definition set out in the Bill. At present, schools that are failing or are likely to fail can be put into special measures. The Bill waters down the definition of special measures. Schools that are likely to fail can no longer be put into special measures, and where a school has failed but has demonstrated a capacity to improve, it can avoid being put into special measures. The result will be fewer schools going into special measures, but that will not mean that fewer schools are failing their pupils. It seems that we must wait until schools have failed before we bring in the detailed intervention and support that Ofsted can give when schools are in special measures.
	We have spoken about the interaction between Ofsted and parents and the fact that the Bill moves away from the formal meeting between Ofsted and parents. One of my concerns is the lack of information to parents once a school has gone into special measures. I know of one parent who had to use the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to gain access to the subsequent Ofsted reports on their school. It is wrong that parents should have to resort to the Act to obtain such information. They should be able to have access to the reports without going down that route. If we are to extend choice in our schools, parents need to know what is happening in their child's school. Obtaining that information is bureaucratic, inappropriate and laborious.
	The Bill seeks to encourage greater choice and diversity in schoolsa pale imitation of our own plans for the right to supply. There are proposals in the Bill to allow local authorities to invite promoters to come forward with proposals to run a new school. That is a modest measure. We will introduce proposals to give people the right to establish new schools, rather than having to seek permission to do so. I wonder whether the proposal in the Bill is yet another example of a Government who are all talk. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) about the measure, he stated in a written answer:
	The Education Bill currently before Parliament will extend the requirement for a competition to all new secondary schools, including schools replacing existing schools as a result of re-organisation.[Official Report, 28 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 939W.]
	Under Building Schools for the Future, a whole series of new schools is about to be built. Will they be subject to the same power of competition that is set out in the Bill? The Minister needs to be very clear whether they will be open to the competition to find people who are prepared to take on those schools and to manage them. If that is not the case, these clauses, like other measures on school choice and diversity, are window dressing. The Government have form in this area. They talk a big story on choice and diversity but the reality is often somewhat different. When I asked how many competitions had been held by local education authorities for the provision of a new school since the powers were introduced, the Under-Secretary saidthere will be no prizes for guessing the answer
	There have been no competitions for new secondary schools since the requirement for a competition for additional secondary schools was introduced in June 2003.[Official Report, 28 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 939W.]
	Yet again, we see measures in a Bill to introduce choice and diversity, and yet again we see no action on those areas.
	Another area where the Bill takes no action, save for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends in another place, is that of behaviour. One of the areas of consensus in this debate concerns the declining standards of behaviour in our schools. This morning, I spent some time with head teachers from a range of schools in south Hampshire, from primary to secondary schools, and mainstream schools to special schools, particularly those teaching children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. There was a clear consensus in that meeting that behaviour was a growing problem from the primary stage right through to the secondary stage. If we are to raise standards in our schools, we must ensure that those children who want to learn can do so in lessons that are free of disruption from the troublemakers who prevent them from getting the education that they deserve and need.
	This Bill would have been the ideal opportunity to introduce measures to help to bring that about. The Government could have introduced measures to protect our teachers. A teacher is assaulted every seven minutes in our schools, but the Government do not bring forward any measures to help them. Once again, we have to rely on Members of the other place to introduce statutory duties to get the chief inspector to report on discipline and behaviour in school and to put pressure on the Government to ensure that it is a duty of the Training and Development Agency for Schools to ensure that the school work force are trained to promote behavioural development.
	Why have not the Government brought forward measures to strengthen the position of head teachers who have to make decisions to exclude pupils? In one Hampshire school recently, the head's decision to exclude a pupil who assaulted a teacher was overturned by an independent appeals panel. That head teacher's judgment was second-guessed, which undermined his authority, sent a clear message to pupils who wonder why children who disrupt lessons are allowed to stay there, and made teachers feel more vulnerable to attack.
	The Bill introduces no measures to tackle the problems that arise when false accusations are made against teachers. How many stories do we have to hear about teachers suffering from false accusations? False accusations destroy many teachers' professional and personal lives, yet the Government fail to act. No wonder teachers are losing faith in them. Our teacher protection Bill would give teachers anonymity when faced with an accusation until the point at which they are charged, sending a clear signal that Conservatives support teachersthat we are concerned about their safety and security and the threats that they face to their professional lives.
	As many hon. Members have said, this is a modest Bill. If it is passed before the general election, it will be a fitting epitaph to a Labour Government who came into office with bold promises for education but have delivered so little. There is little in the Bill for the teachers who are subject to an assault, little to tackle the 1.3 million children who truant and little to help parents who despair of finding the right school for their child. It bears all the hallmarks of a Government who have run out of steam, direction and drive. It is time for a change in education. The people of this country want a Government who will put education at the heart of their priorities and pursue the raising of standards of attainment and school discipline with drive, commitment and enthusiasm. It is time to give the people of this country that choice.

Stephen Twigg: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to what the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr.   Hoban) rightly described as a wide-ranging debate. It went somewhat wider than the Bill, but enabled various education-related issues to be explored while leaving me with two hours and five minutes to respond. I can assure all hon. Members that I will do my very best not to take up the entire time. In case we do finish unexpectedly early, let me inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have been back with us for 10 o'clock, but she is attending the Evening Standard teaching awards. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) asked me to give his apologies because he, too, has an engagement.
	In the course of the debate, the Bill was described as modest, sensible, quiet and momentous. It is a Bill that responds to some of the key challenges that we all face when we visit schools. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) set out the issues that are raised with him when he visits schools in his constituency, and I have to say that they are exactly the same as those that are raised with me when I visit schools across the country and in my own constituency. The Bill seeks to deal with some of those issues.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said that 79 per cent. of the Bill simply re-enacts legislation. I am advised that that is not true, although I must confess that I have not carried out such a close analysis of the clauses. It is true that part 1 re-enacts much of the Education Act 1996 with regard to Wales, which simply reflects the effects of devolution and the preference of the Welsh Assembly Government in that respect. For England, there is some re-enactment, but we believe that that applies to less than half the Bill. Perhaps we can return to that subject in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield raised a serious issue in relation to the chief inspector continuing to report to the Select Committee. I spoke to him privately and want to reassure the House by repeating what I said to himthat the chief inspector absolutely will continue to report to the Select Committee. That relationship of Ofsted to Parliament is very important, and there is no intention whatever for it to change. [Interruption.] I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having given the House her apologiesshe is in fact here.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield asked why more of the five-year strategy is not contained in the Bill. That point was addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Some of the important measures on which we are consulting and which have featured in the debatefor example, changing category to foundation statusdo not require primary legislation but will be done via secondary legislation. Much of the tone and tempo of the five-year strategy is about deregulation and therefore does not necessarily require direct legislation. If some elements do, we can return to them in due course.
	The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) reminded the House about the Conservatives' decision to appoint the former chief inspector and referred to a specific example from that period at Islington Green school. I do not want to comment on that, but I would like to say, in respect of the work that we are doing through the London challenge, that Islington Green school is very much a school on the up. I look forward to working with his colleagues in Islington on making it a city academy. They are very keen to create an academy that will serve that important community and give its children opportunities that may not have been there in the past.
	The hon. Member for Southport said that the Bill demonstrates an animus towards local education authorities. I simply do not accept that. An important role for local authorities remains through the Bill and the five-year strategy. It is not the old, traditional role of providing but it involves local leadership, strategic planning and being a champion of the child and the family. Bringing together the Bill with the Children Act 1989 will provide an opportunity for local government to play such a role in future.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North described the Bill as not the most exciting or radical measure. He said that it was sensible. Like other hon. Members, he drew attention to the benefits that the introduction of three-years budgets will bring to schools. That is an important change. One thing that schools tell us is that lack of predictability and certainty in planning their budgeting is a serious challenge for them. In the light of difficulties two years ago with school funding, we have introduced those arrangements, and I believe that they will create stability in the way in which my hon. Friend pointed out.
	The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made a characteristically thoughtful speech. He is right that we need evidence-based policy development. The opportunities to deal through the Select Committee with some of issues that he raisedfor example, the role of phonics in the national literacy strategyhave been important. I am studying Clackmannanshire and the evidence there. My understanding, on advice, is that the teaching of phonics in Clackmannanshire bears a close resemblance to what we do in the national literacy strategy in England and that the main contrast is with what happens in the rest of Scotland. However, I have asked for a more detailed analysis because it is important to consider evidence on such matters.
	The hon. Gentleman expressed a concern that was echoed by others in the debate: the danger of losing the hard edge of Ofsted's approach. It is vital to maintain the integrity and robustness of Ofsted's systems. He said that schools were, in practice, unaccountable. I do not believe that he would find many schools that thought that. The combination of inspection, which the Bill tackles, the publication of data in considerable detail and the new school profile, which the measure introduces, forms a powerful set of weapons with which to hold schools to account. I hope that parents would feel that they could use those weapons to gain the sort of accountability that he rightly said we should expect of all schools.
	The hon. Member for Rayleigh, in a thoughtful speech, mentioned schools in his constituency. I remember visiting Greensward school in Hockley, and it is indeed a fine school. I was pleased by his comments about citizenshipI do not know whether he will pass them on to the former chief inspector of schools who is conducting the curriculum review for the Conservative party, as I believe that he expressed a different view. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that including citizenship in the national curriculum was an important move that enjoyed cross-party support, and I hope that it will continue to do so.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly set out some of the dilemmas of inclusion and exclusion. We are all trying to get the balance right. At our advice surgeries, we have all met parents who want a special school to remain for their child and those who want their child with a special educational need to be included in the mainstream. We need a system that can meet the needs of all those children and we must work together to ensure that that happens.
	The hon. Gentleman dealt with perhaps the most important element of the Bill: the bureaucracy and red tape that so many teachers, head teachers and others in education tell us can be such a burden. The Bill creates the new relationship with schools, leading to a single conversation and moving towards a single funding stream precisely to get away from the position that he accurately described as frustrating for teachers and head teachers. The test will be whether we can make the system work, but I believe that we should be able to do that.
	The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned academies and asked where their accountability lies. Strictly speaking, they are directly accountable to the Secretary of State. We aim to have 200 academies and we want them to work with local schools and local education authorities to be part of the community. I do not accept the argument that the hon. Gentleman and others make that there is some automatic contradiction between academies' independence, autonomy and ability to innovate, and the desire for collaboration. I believe that we can achieve both. If we do, we can reach a position of genuine excellence for communities, which schools and local education authorities have often let down in the past.
	I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) for briefly leaving the Chamber during his speech. He started with a powerful point about the way in which our system does well for the top 10 per cent. and far less well for the bottom 10 per cent. In the jargon, we have a system that is high on excellence but low on equity. That is a big part of the challenge that we face. We have made good progress. Evidence of the impact of excellence in cities, specialist schools and the primary strategy shows that the biggest beneficiaries have been schools in some of the poorest and most deprived areas in the country. However, I do not deny that a big challenge confronts us.
	The hon. Member for Newbury and others referred to clause 70. We do not propose to remove its substance. We will table an amendment in Committee to tidy up aspects of the drafting but leave the principles intact. It is worth reminding hon. Members that, since February 1998, when we introduced the presumption against the closure of rural schools, there has been a significant fall in the rate of closure. The average before 1997 was 30 rural schools a year, and it is now five. Anything that can be done to strengthen that through legislation will enjoy wide support throughout the House.

David Rendel: Will the Minister also provide the necessary funding to ensure that rural schools can stay open?

Stephen Twigg: That is one of the challenges. With funding, we must always deal with several different concerns. One is stability, which in a sense is what the hon. Gentleman means, but another is fairness. Several hon. Members have referred to that in the context of the way in which the formula currently works. Consultation is now taking place on exactly how the three-year funding and the dedicated schools grant will work. That is powerful in giving certainty and stability to schools, but we must acknowledge that we will receive requests from all sorts of authorities, such as Leicestershire, to revert to the basic funding formula. Hon. Members will wish to consider that again later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) raised several issues, some of which related to the Bill. He made important points about physical activity. He reminded us of the reduction in class sizes in infant schools and reinforced the importance of the reduction in bureaucracy to which the measure will lead. He then anticipated the Adjournment debate. I know that my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), is looking forward to responding to that debate on the position in Leicestershire, so I shall not anticipate itnot even with a curtain raiser.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) set me a challenge. It was hard to hear exactly what he was saying, but I ignored his comments about getting advice from the Box and I therefore have that advice. Clause 114 will simplify the supply of information from schools in multiple surveys by providing for a single survey. That precisely meets the concerns that the hon. Member for Rayleigh expressed about the multiple requests for information and their contribution to the bureaucracy to which he and others referred during the debate.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold also raised a concern about data sharing on free school meals and education maintenance allowances. I believe that he understands that that is designed to reduce bureaucracy, encourage take-up of free school meals and reduce the stigma that, as he said, is sometimes attached to the current application process. That sharing of information is also designed to reduce the capacity for fraud, especially with regard to education maintenance allowances, but we may revert to that in Committee.
	We have had a wide-ranging debate. This is an important Bill and I hope that it will enjoy cross-party support.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: One of the important facets of the Bill is the proposal for a three-year budget. There can be problems with such budgets, however, if they are wrong to start with, as happened in Gloucestershire, which is at the bottom of the F40 league. Will the Minister give us an assurance that, if the Bill becomes law, even under the three-year budgetary process, there will be an opportunity to look at individual local education authorities to see whether their funding is at the right level?

Stephen Twigg: I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman or the House. We are consulting on three-year budgets, and I encourage him and others to participate in that consultation, which started recently. Meanwhile, I would simply repeat what I just said, which was that nothing is ever set in stone, and that there are opportunities for people to express their views in the House and directly to Ministers. I shall be happy to have such an exchange with the hon. Gentleman and to have meetings with him and representatives from his education authority, but I do not want to raise a false expectation that things are going to change overnight.
	This is a good Bill that builds on what we have done over the past eight years

Mark Francois: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Twigg: For the last time.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for giving way; I am sure he can just about squeeze this intervention in. I also thank him for some of the kind things that he said about what I and some of my colleagues had to say this evening. He has tried to address some of the points that we raised. However, I want to press him further on an important point. He argues that the Bill will reduce bureaucracy, but I am not convinced that it will. May I stress that, whoever is in power in the DFES, there is now genuine and serious cynicism in the profession, and teachers will believe that bureaucracy has been reduced only when they can see it with their own eyes. I really want him to take that on board.

Stephen Twigg: Of course that is true. I sought to respond to every Member, so I did not go into detail earlier, but what struck me about the hon. Gentleman's description of the list that appeared in the staff room was that it contained things that all of us would have wanted to see, such as PE, sport and modern foreign languages in our schools. The Bill is saying that we should have a single plan for a school, that we should have a single conversation with the school and that the school should work with a single partner to bring about school improvement. The hon. Gentleman is right: if we can make that work, the cynicism will go down. The challenge is to ensure that that system will work. I believe that we can achieve that, and I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

EDUCATION BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 83A(6) (Programming of bills),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Education Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14th April 2005.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Programming Committee
	6. Standing Order No.83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Programming of proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Bill, it is expedient to authorise
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which by virtue of any other Act are payable out of money provided by Parliament, and
	(2) payments into the Consolidated Fund.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I notice that, having disposed of the business relating to the Bill that we have been considering, we now come to 15 orders. As you will know, we have a Government who deliberately refuse to do anything sensible with Parliament: they gag us and they insist that everything is rubber-stamped. If I understand this correctly, we now have the opportunity, if we choose to use it, to vote on these 15 orders between now and 10 o'clock. Is there any way in which common sense can be applied? As we have an hour and three quarters in which Parliament could use its time to discuss these matters instead of simply tramping through the Lobby, is there any waydespite the fact that the Government treat Parliament with contemptin which you could enable us to debate these important matters rather than simply voting on them without discussion?

Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no way in which the Chair can enable such a debate to take place. The hon. Gentleman is correct, however, in saying that the orders may be voted on.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together motions 4, 5 and 6.

David Wilshire: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Objection taken.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115(3) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)),
	That the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Public Processions (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Criminal Law

That the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Social Security (Inherited SERPS) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Family Law

That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Pensions

That the draft Pension Protection Fund (PPF Ombudsman) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved. [Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Justices of the Peace

That the draft Courts Act 2003 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

National Lottery

That the draft New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiative) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Fisheries: Total Allowable Catch Quotas in 2005 And 2006

That this House takes not of European Union Documents No.15390/04, draft Council Regulation fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep sea stocks, and No.15237/04, draft Council Regulation fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required; and supports the Government's objective of achieving the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fishing resources in line with the precautionary principle whilst preserving a viable degree of activity for the industry.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Third Railway Package

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No.7170/04, Commission Communication: further integration of the European rail system, No.7147/04, draft Directive amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, No.7172/04, Commission staff working paper: draft Directive amending Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways to gradually open up   the market for international passenger services by rail, No.7149/04, draft Regulation on international rail passengers' rights and obligations, No.7148/04, draft Directive on the certification of train crews operating locomotives and trains on the Community's rail network, and No.7150/04, draft Regulation on compensation in cases of non compliance with contractual quality requirements for rail freight services; and endorses the Government's approach to continuing discussions in Council in order to secure practical, proportionate and cost effective legislation aimed at developing the Community single rail area.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 24th March, do adjourn till Monday 4th April 2005.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to motion 19.

Nick Ainger: Not moved.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order has been rather spoiled by that motion not being moved, because I was going to ask whether there was anything in our Standing Orders that would enable us to congratulate a nice little mover on a job well done.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although the Whip on duty has not moved the motion, would it be open to other Members to move it in his place?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not open to any other Member to move that motion.

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It looks unlikely that there will be deferred Divisions on these statutory instruments, because we could neither debate them nor vote on them. I understand, however, that further statutory instruments that have been considered in Committee will be on the Order Paper tomorrow. Judging by the behaviour in Committee, Divisions might be sought tomorrow

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into a debate, rather than making a point of order. I must bring him to order.

PETITION
	  
	      Middleton on Sea

Nick Gibb: I have great pleasure in presenting a petition signed by more than 3,200 residents of Middleton on Sea and the surrounding area in my constituency. The petitioners are concerned about the poor state of repair of the coastal defences that protect Middleton on Sea from flooding, the lack of funding to repair those coastal defences and the change in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' priority scoring system in late 2002, which significantly reduced the likelihood of funding for the essential improvements to the sea defences. I am grateful to David Szynowski and the committee of the Middleton on Sea Association for their work in collecting the signatures.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the residents of Middleton on Sea and the surrounding area,
	Declares that Arun District Council's Shoreline Management Plan and its Coastal Defence Strategy prepared by engineering consultants identify the essential need for coastal defence works to save the beaches and coastline in the Middleton on Sea area. The petitioners further declare that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have refused to fund these essential works.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring in legislation to ensure the maintenance and protection of the beaches in the Middleton on Sea area.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

EDUCATION FUNDING (LEICESTERSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Ainger.]

Andrew Robathan: We have not yet heard all the debate on education funding in Leicestershire, notwithstanding what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), who I know intends to take part in the debate. I want to welcome in particular the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is concerned about the issues that I wish to raise.
	I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), will respond to the debate. It is probably an old joke, but I suppose that he is part of a branch of Education Ministers, given that I was expecting his namesake, the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), to take the debate.
	Education, education, education was the mantra that we used to hear before the general election in 1997. The people of Leicestershire now regard that as all talk. I have had a lot of letters from teachers, among others, saying that they voted Labour in 1997 because they believed what they were told about Education, education, education, which produces a hollow laugh.
	Almost exactly two years ago, on 4 March 2003, I led a debate on exactly the same topic in Westminster Hall, as the situation in my constituency and throughout Leicestershire was so dire. The Minister for the Cabinet Office replied to the debate, without great courtesy. Subsequently, I spent some time trying to get a meeting with the then Education Secretary, now the Home Secretary, who finally granted a meeting with a cross-party delegation. Contrary to many newspaper reports, he was extremely courteous and helpful. I have always found him to be so in my dealings with him. I put that on the record, as some people accuse him of being less than always cuddly, if I may put it that way. What I particularly remember him saying, referring to education funding in Leicestershirehe said it several times, and it was reported in newspaperswas that this must not happen again. Well, it has happened again, and for the third year running.
	This afternoon, the current Education Secretary promised clearer budgets and unparalleled stability for schools. We have heard it all before. As a bit of window dressing, the previous debate is unsurpassed, because if people examine the programme motion, they will see that it says:
	Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall . . . be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14th April 2005.
	Perhaps there will be a Committee discussing the Education Bill on 14 April, but somehow I doubt it. What we have heard today on the Education Bill is all fluff and nonsense, and electioneering by the Government.
	The Government have made many promises on education, including the undertaking to make education funding,
	as fair, clear and simple as possible.
	The sentiment might be admirable, but it is nothing like the reality. I am speaking on behalf of the teachers, governors, parents and children of Leicestershire. They deserve a fairer deal.
	Leicestershire has the lowest education formula spending share per pupil of any LEA in the country. On average, the FSS per pupil in Leicestershire is 13.63 per cent. below the national average. Leicestershire county council tops up education spending by 10 million to make up for the inadequacy of Government funding. That is fine, but if Leicestershire were funded at the average for shire countries, a typical 200-place school would receive an extra 48,000. If it were funded at the same level as Leicester city, just across Braunstone lane, which divides the city from my constituency, such a school would receive a massive 126,000 more. That is a staggering imbalance. Were Leicestershire to receive the same funding level as the English average, it would receive 90,000 extra. Were the county to be funded to the same extent as the city, by central Government funding through the FSS, the county education authority would receive more than 50 million extra. One does not have to be well versed in accountancy or education funding to know the difference that 50 million can make.
	The consequences of this funding imbalance are clear. Performance is affected. This year, Leicestershire county council has had to negotiate with the regional Department for Education and Skills representative to lower its education targets because they have been set unrealistically high given the dire funding shortfall. That means, for example, delays in maintaining and replacing equipment, and less investment in new technology, inevitably, as there is less money to spend. Recruitment and retention become difficult. Schools in my constituencyI shall refer to one lateralready face redundancies and staff shortfalls.
	Understandably, in such circumstances, low morale is a problem. I have been particularly occupied recently by letters from teachers, as the Under-Secretary will know, protesting about changes to their pensions. We understand that there is a demographic problem in relation to people living longer. Nevertheless, once somebody has signed up to employment conditions, changing those employment conditions unilaterally, as is happening with local government pensions and teachers' pensions, is, to put it mildly, undesirable. Furthermore, in small schools especially, classes are becoming larger, with less individual attention for children who need it.
	I suggest that the Government are failing in their assessment of basic entitlement by focusing too much on deprivationentitlement is being assessed from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. The recommendation of the F40 group of the poorest-funded authorities, with which I am sure the Under-Secretary has had dealings, is that the entitlement should be determined on the basis of what it costs to educate a pupil. That seems to me to be pretty fair.
	We also think that the basic entitlement has been set too low. The Government have tried previously to blame inadequate funding on local authorities. As I have said, however, Leicestershire is spending an extra 10 million on education, and the Government claim that it does not pass on adequate funding to schools through passporting. That is grossly unfair, certainly to the LEA in Leicestershire. Recent Government policy has had the effect of reducing the authority of LEAs to direct the funding of schools in their area. The recent report of the Education and Skills Committee, Public Expenditure on Education and Skills, criticised the Government for that, saying that the proposed changes would not help to solve the school funding problems. It went on to say that that would lead inevitably to greater central Government interference.
	In addition, there is too great a disparity between LEAs. I have mentioned the differences, but let us consider the neighbouring counties with similar problems as well as good sides. In the coming year, Leicestershire is to receive on average 160 more per pupil while Lincolnshire, which is next door to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, will receive 247 more per pupil.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Robathan: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to refer to me as his hon. Friend. I always get on well with him. Of course I will give way.

David Taylor: I refer to my hon. Friend thus because he is my hon. Friend.
	My hon. Friendas I have called himcompares Lincolnshire with Leicestershire, but although it bears some similarities to the sparsely populated area in north-east Leicestershire, Lincolnshire has much more sparsely populated areas overall. It therefore contains more smaller primary schools with higher unit costs. Must that not be recognised in the central grant formula? Must not Lincolnshire receive more because of that?

Andrew Robathan: I have already said that I think deprivation has a part to play. I shall mention other issues shortly, but I have a list here, from which I see that North-East Lincolnshirethe first authority that I have stumbled acrossreceives 10.7 per cent. more funding per pupil than Leicestershire. The hon. Gentleman may think that that is reasonable, but I do not. I shall explain why in a moment.
	The transitional funding offered by the Government does not get Leicestershire out of its difficulties, either. In the current financial year, which is about to end, Leicestershire receives 3.5 million. In the coming financial year it will receive only 1.8 million, despite being the lowest-funded education authority in the country.
	Let me say something about city pupils. My constituency marches with the city. I think Loughborough does as well, but perhaps it does not, in which case my constituency is the only one that does. Across the borders of the city every day come nearly 4,600 pupils, becauseI am afraidLeicestershire provides better education, notwithstanding the vast amounts that have been poured into the city for whatever reasons. The point is that the money allocated per pupil to the city does not travel with the child. Nor, indeed, does the city receive the funding. Money allocated to education through the formula spending share disappears back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That does not seem right. Either the children deserve the money spent on them which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and various other Departments put aside at one stage, or they do not.
	Let me say something about the so-called school work force agenda. Because of the Government's policies, other burdens are about to fall on schools at the same time as lower funding. What is described as PPAplanning preparation and assessmentis a jolly good policy, and I am all for it, but it has to be funded. As of September, schools will have to cater for it. Many schools have written to the Government to say that they will be unable to bear the costs. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how many Leicestershire schools have written to the Secretary of State. I understand that 10,000 parents have signed a petition which they will send to No. 10 Downing street, although I have not yet seen it. A high school and a primary schoolI will not name them, because I have not spoken to their head teachershave applied to the county council asking to go into deficit until 2008.
	Classroom assistants are also not funded in Leicestershire. I visit schools where I am told that the classroom assistants are having to be laid off. The cost of a teacher is determined by a national pay scale, so the cost is the same in Leicestershire as it is in Leicester city. Staff costs comprise between 80 and 85 per cent. of the costs of most schools. We accept that there are regional differentialsLondon is probably more expensive, and I would guess that people there are paid a supplementbut the cost of computers, heating, books, grass-cutting and whatever else requires expenditure is basically the same. Although local differentials exist, the current system exaggerates them.
	The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) mentioned sparsity. There is a good deal of sparsity in the village schools that are scattered around his constituency and mine. We understand that Leicestershire is prosperous, but why must it be penalised to such an extent? We also understand that someone will be a loser: someone will be at the bottom of the pile. What I want to know is how such a differential can be justified.
	Worse still, the county council tells me that the new system that is out for consultationI think it is in the Education Bill, which we have just been discussingwill make matters worse.

David Taylor: This is about more than money, is it not, important though that is? The results for Leicestershire, not including the city, are in the top quartile for all LEAs, and in the past 18 months or so its LEA has been highly rated by Ofsted. This is about not just cash but leadership, drive and commitment.

Andrew Robathan: I agree entirelyit is a question of much more than cash. I pay tribute, as the hon. Gentleman doubtless wants to do, to the Conservative-controlled LEA that is so well run that it has received praise. Moreover, David Parsons and Ivan Ould do an excellent job in managing the county council. If one can get a well-motivated teacher, the quality of teaching can be absolutely splendid even in a mud hut, with no fuss as to whether the air conditioning is set at the right temperature, for example. Indeed, I have witnessed as much in Africa, although in fact, the buildings there tend to be shacks with corrugated iron roofs. That said, in general we would rather have well-funded teaching as well.
	What this Government have done, for which I give them credit, is to increase teachers' pay. Teachers' pay is better than it was seven years agoas one would hope, given that there has been some inflation since then. Indeed, MPs' pay is also better than it was then, but the hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire and for Loughborough would not know that because they were not here in the days of the previous Conservative Government.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Robathan: Oh, go on.

David Taylor: The time stretches before us until half past 10. While the hon. Gentleman is giving credit for the changes achieved since 1 May 1997, perhaps he will agree that the single most substantive change is that annual capital expenditure in Leicestershire, which was 3.8 million in 199697, has gone up almost tenfold since then. Surely that is a significant bonus to Leicestershire.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman will doubtless tell the good people of North-West LeicestershireI am sure that they write to him on this issue, just as they write to me in Blabythat everything in the garden is rosy and absolutely fantastic. I was going to mention this later, but I will tell him now about a primary school that I visited last summer[Interruption.] I happen to know that one of its governors, to whom I spoke, most certainly does not vote Conservative and nor, I think, does the head teacher. I was told, We are having this fantastic new classroom built, involving huge capital expenditureyou can see it over there. Perhaps you would like to come to the official opening; in fact, perhaps you might like to open it. As it happened, I could not attend. Unfortunately, they said, although we will have this nice new classroom, we don't have the funding to pay for a teacher to go in it. That is telling, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire has similar stories from his own constituency.
	I do not want to name individual schools unless they have gone public on this issueto do so would be invidious without their permissionbut I shall refer to a primary school that I visited earlier this year. It has minimum guaranteed funding of more than 350,000, which is a large budget. The shortfall that the head teacher is looking to address is more than 48,000, which is enormousnearly one seventh of the budget. She had to make 1.2 teachers redundant, according to the way in which such things work, and one of the administration staff had to go as well. She said, But I've already cut the classroom assistants. The head wanted to know how she was going to cover the planning, preparation and assessment periods, which were to be two hours and 28 minutes each.
	When that head teacher asked what she should do, I had no answer. The hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire, for Loughborough and for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) will be pleased to know that I did not say Vote Conservative, because I was not trying to make party political points. She then told me that she spent all her time dealing with the deluge of paperwork from the Department for Education and Skills, which we heard about earlier, and asked me what I could do to help. I did say that a Conservative Government could help in that regard, but as I said, I do not try to make such visits party political.
	I will mention Gilmorton school, which I also visited last summer. It has gone very public on this issue. Parents at the school, which is very close to where I live, are up in arms and very voluble. At the time of my visit, the fear was that teachers would be made redundant because the school had to try to balance its books. I think that that happened, although I cannot swear to that as I have yet to revisit it.
	Let me describe the reality on the groundhard-working schools, struggling to keep hard-working teachers and hard-working classroom assistants because they are strapped for cash. Much money has gone into education, but it is not there at the coal face. There was a report yesterdaythe Minister may want to say that it is complete nonsensethat the National Audit Office found that 123,000 of the extra people employed in education are actually administrators, civil servants, dinner ladies or whatever. The Minister will have to comment on that report, which I have not myself seen.
	Two years ago when I spoke on this issue, I avoided being party political, and the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire came with me to see the then Education Secretary. We deliberately refused to argue in party political terms. I have to say that now, with a general election looming, when I am campaigning in Leicestershire I shall be banging on about education funding. What will the Minister be able to say to my Labour opponent? What will he be able to say to satisfy the teachers, governors and parents in Leicestershire and in my constituency? What will he say to the head teacher of the small school facing a 48,000 shortfallone seventh of the budget? Should we, God willing, win the general election, we will ensure that schools get a better deal.
	Finally, I want

Andy Reed: rose

Andrew Robathan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to make his swan song in a speech in a few minutes' time, but I will give way to him now.

Andy Reed: If the hon. Gentleman saw me moving, he would never describe me as giving a swan song, and I have never been described as a swan.
	On the specific point that he made, I am disappointed that he wants to make this into an issue in the general election in the stark terms in which he raised it. Unfortunately for him, if he did, it would only expose Tory education policies. First, the Tories want to cut 1 billion from local education authorities across the country, and we have no idea where that would come from. Furthermore, the pupil passport would probably take out another 1 billion from the state education system. If he looked at his own party's policy document, he would see that it refers to almost exactly the same funding formula. I was hoping that we could work on a cross-party basis on that, but will he explain to the voters of Blaby that his party's policies would be even worse for Leicestershire?

Andrew Robathan: I am sorry that I gave way, though I will miss the hon. Gentleman after the general election, because he is entirely wrong. I just explained how many of the extra people in the sector were in education administration. If he does not understand that, he should go and talk to his own child's primary school head teacher and ask how much paper is pumped outday in, day outfrom the office down the road and lands on the head teacher's desk. That does not come free; it comes very expensive.
	I look forward to hearing what my colleagues from Leicestershiremy friends from the other sidehave to say. I hope that they will explain what the Government have against the children and parents of my county.

Andy Reed: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who knows that I held a similar debate in Westminster Hall on 5 November, when he and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) were present. On that occasion, many of the same issues were raised with the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who is now the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
	It is a shame that the end of the speech given by the hon. Member for Blaby degenerated into a party political rant, but I suppose that that is unavoidable, given the likely election timetable. I, too, have started to get very interested, and for the same reason, in what policies the Tories are proposing on education. I urge him to reflect more on the consequences of some of those policies, particularly the pupil passport, which would be a disaster for the Leicestershire education system.

Andrew Robathan: I could explain Tory party policies on education in great detail and point out that they would lead to a considerable amount of money saved from bureaucracy being invested back in the front line, in schools. However, I know that if I did so you would call me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Andy Reed: In that particular case, I am sure that you would not call the hon. Gentleman to order, Madam Deputy Speakernot if we are talking about the funding of education in Leicestershire. I am sure that the people of Leicestershire would be delighted to know the detail, and again I observe that the hon. Gentleman has not dealt with my specific point about the pupil passport or the voucher system that his party proposes. Perhaps he is not 100 per cent. aware of the consequences: the pupil passport would take more than 1 billion out of the education system across the country, affecting an estimated 33,000 students. He should reflect on the circumstances in Leicestershire schools. Under the Conservative proposals, if 10 pupils left each school, 5,000 would be taken out with each one of them, so he should just think of the impact that that would have. I urge the hon. Gentleman to exercise some caution in making this debate a party political one in the run-up to the general election, because I am afraid that his party will be exposed quite badly on that point.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that that 1 billion, translated to Leicestershire, which has approximately 1 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom, amounts to taking about 10 million from what the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has described as a cash-strapped county? That is not much of a way ahead.

Andy Reed: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend's maths are always much better than my own. As he is an accountant who worked for Leicestershire county council, I always rely on his figures.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that we have actually pledged to spend more on education overall, rather than less

David Taylor: How?

Andrew Robathan: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier, he would have heard how. However, we are discussing the here and now rather than the hereafterlife after the Government, thank goodness for it! Would the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) concentrate on that and explain why parents, teachers and governors are writing to us all to complain about what is happening in Leicestershire now, not at some stage in the future?

Andy Reed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to switch the emphasis away from what he has proposed. It is a shame that he ended his speech as he did, because we have worked closely together over the years in a cross-party group of MPs. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and I were in the original E8 group before it became F40. There were only eight of us to start with, and right from 1997, when we entered Parliament, we saw the disastrous effects that the funding formula had on Leicestershire. It was clear from the start that we would have to work on it, and I was grateful to work with my hon. Friend.

David Taylor: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He was not blowing his own trumpet when he said that he was part of a very non-partisan delegation to the present Home Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Education. We all contributed, and the hon. Gentleman was not partisan then, even if he is being partisan now. But what is going to happen in seven weeks' time must, I suppose, affect his attitude to these things.

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend is right. After whenever it is5 May or June next year, or whenever it isI hope that we can all work together. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blaby is not too confident of his own chances of being here, as he showed when he said that he might not be able to work together with us in future.
	Let me come to the starting point of what I wanted to say. There are three strands to the argument before us: where we have come from, where we are now, and what we do about the future.
	Those of us who worked at county hall in the early 1990s know where we have come from. The previous Government were in power, and we remember the cuts that we saw year on year. From 1992 to 1997, the average cut in real terms per pupil was 60. Each year inflation ran at 3 to 5 per cent., but the average increase in education funding for Leicestershire was under 1 per cent.: it was 0.9 per cent. in 199495, and in 199596 it was 0.8 per cent. Strangely enough, it jumped to 5.5 per cent. in election year, in 199697, although I do not know whether that jump was related to anything. Overall, we saw decreases in the amount of money going to Leicestershire education authority. Those of us who were governors during those times know exactly what that meant. It meant real and deep cuts in front-line education services for teachers and pupils.
	Let us not pretend, then, that all was rosy on 1 May 1997 and that it has all been a disaster since. In fact, overall spending per pupil in Leicestershire has increased by 800 in real termsthat is, above inflationsince 1997. That is a 27 per cent. increase in place of the previous real-terms cuts. Teacher numbers have risen by 450. The funding formula has been discussed once and is about to be discussed again. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire was exactly right to point out that the increase in capital funding has been really impressive. It has jumped from about 2 million on averageI remember it being about 1.8 million in 199495and is now more than 30 million, and has been in the upper 20 millions for the past three or four years.
	We have also seen great benefit from the Sure Start programme. Unfortunately, the business of the House on Friday prevented me from going to the opening of the new Sure Start in Shelthorpe. On nursery provision for three and four-year-olds, I declare an interest because my three-year-old daughter has just started nursery and is benefiting from it, and my son went through it. It is a fantastic provision.
	As I said earlier, I made my maiden speech in this House in 1997 during the debate on reducing class sizes. It is great that in Leicestershire, where more than 7,000 five, six and seven-year-olds were in classes of more than 31, class sizes have reduced drastically.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is right; we always got on well. Those achievements are fantastic, but could he explain why there is a differential between Leicestershire and Leicester city?

Andy Reed: As I said, there are three parts to the question: where have we come from, we are we now, and where are we going? The positive part of the picture is the amount of funding. However, the hon. Gentleman, or perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), intervened when I was about to come to the however or but. There is a problem with the funding formula and the hon. Member for Blaby highlighted part of that problem. It is sometimes difficult for Members of Parliament to explain the differential to constituents and others. I often have to try to do so to other parents when I walk to school regularly with my son. It would be interesting to know exactly how the Conservative party's proposed formula would make a difference, because it is almost exactly the same. I shall explain exactly how it is made up because I have done some research.
	As the hon. Member for Blaby knows, I have asked hundreds of parliamentary questions on the subject and I have a breakdown of how Leicestershire's funding is made up. For those of us who are awful at algebra, it is horrendous to look at the table. It has 11 columns of different funding levels, and funding per pupil in 2003 was 2,111. That is the same for a child anywhere in the country. That is the basic entitlement for that age groupprimary school pupils. Additional funding for each additional educational needs pupil is 1,370. However, Leicestershire is a wealthy county because the city was taken out during the local government organisation. Although I have patches of deprivation in my constituency, there is not a lot in the county as a whole. We receive only 1 per cent. in additional money for the level of deprivation in the county, which adds 9 per pupil.

David Taylor: This morning I went to a school in Coalville, which is a less well-off area, to speak to David Lloyd, head of Warren Hills community school. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if the Conservative administration at county hall, Glenfield weighted the internal distribution formula to reflect those pockets of deprivation in an otherwise well-off county?

Andy Reed: I was about to come to that. The hon. Member for Blaby referred to Leicestershire county council and the part that it plays. It is a reasonable authorityalthough I have to say that, because I worked with the people there for many years and would not want to have a go at them. Two matters are worth mentioning now. The council plays a role in the distribution. There may be difficulties in the funding formula from the Government to the councilI hope that we can address the technical detailsbut the funding formula in the county also needs to be addressed. It would be worth while for the county's Members from both sides of the House to take the message to county hall that that needs to be addressed.
	It is also important to recognise that although the county has topped up the amount it gives to schools through the council taxlots of other authorities have done that, and I believe that Leicestershire is in the bottom third of authorities that have done sothere are additional problems at local level, not just at national level. It is important to put on the record how the formula is arrived at and why we suffer particularly in Leicestershire.
	On top of that, there is the sparsity issue. Leicestershire has pockets of sparsity, including my area. We get 0.3805 for sparsity, which gives us additional funding per unit of sparsity of 175, which gives usin pounds per pupil67. On sparsity, Leicestershire does reasonably well, compared with other authorities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lincolnshire, but it is probably not the best direct comparison; that is probably Nottinghamshire. If he has the figures to hand, he may be able to put me right on that.
	The killer blow lies in the additional cost allowancethe payment that tries to recognise the additional costs of London weighting and south-east weighting. It tries to address the very real problem that costs are higher in London, outer London and some parts of the south-east. Part of the problem is that since the last funding review Leicestershire has been right on the margin. Cambridgeshire used to be right at the bottom of the funding formula, alongside Leicestershire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and I worked closely on some detailed proposals for changing the system. It worked well for Cambridgeshire, which was brought within the area cost adjustment area because of the increased costs associated with the M11 corridor and the Cambridge phenomenon.
	So Leicestershire gets its basic funding entitlement, with which we all agree

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman was not listening earlier. I do not agree with the basic funding entitlement, because it should be higherespecially as pay scales for teachers are determined nationally, so all teachers are paid the same, and staffing costs account for some 80 to 85 per cent. of schools' costs.

Andy Reed: The hon. Gentleman did say that he believed in a basic state entitlement

Andrew Robathan: No. It should be higher.

Andy Reed: If the hon. Gentleman would let me finish, my proposal, in the letter I sent as part of the consultation process, is to raise the basic entitlement

Andrew Robathan: So we agree.

Andy Reed: Exactly. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not let me finish, because if he had he would have learned that some time ago. He gave the percentage differences, and Leicestershire's funding is 13.6 per cent. lower than the average for shire counties. However, to take one example in London, schools in Camden get an extra 991 for running costs through the ACA, because they are in inner London. That is where Leicestershire is hit by the funding formula. I can accept that we will never score highly on the deprivation measure, although we do okay out of the sparsity factor. However, I would like more information about how the ACA is calculated to address the problem that the hon. Gentleman and I both have with the funding. This is a technical matter, not necessarily a party political one.
	In such circumstances, it is much better if we can work together. We need to address the level of the ACA and the basic entitlement. If we can change those, we can narrow the gap. Not even the hon. Gentleman would mind being the lowest funded LEAsomeone has to be at the bottom of the tableif the size of the variation were reduced. Even members of Leicestershire county council have said that they are pleased with the overall increase in their funding. Ivan Ould was quoted as saying that he did not mind Leicestershire being the lowest funded authority, as long as it was well funded. We probably all share that sentiment.
	I broadly accept the proposals in the recent consultation, but we need to review the funding formula. It is slightly disingenuous to suggest that if we moved up to the average, we would be X better off, because the overall budget would not change. If we increased the funding for Leicestershire, the money would have to come from somewhere else. Rightly, therefore, the London MPs and others are battling hard to retain the formula. That is why we welcome the floors and ceilings proposal made by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the best way to achieve our aims over the short to medium term. However, it is important, in the present consultation period, to press for an acceptance that it is worth reconsidering the operation of the funding formula and its impact on places such as Leicestershire.
	I have visited all the 36 schools in my constituency, some of them several times. Funding is always one of the first issues to be raised, and it is an easy headline the lowest funded education authority in the country. Unfortunately, by the time one has explained the education funding formula most people have usually switched off, especially on the doorstep. People ask why there is education funding. We can tell them that it is sensible, that it works in a particular way and that there is a reason for it, but trying to explain the size of the variation is extremely difficult.
	I make a plea not just on behalf of all 36 schools but also for my son's school, in which I declared an interest, where we face a deficit budget this year. The problem is genuine. In the past, people might have dismissed it by saying that educationists, teachers and heads would always say that everyone wants more money. We all want spending in our constituencies, and we could easily double the public sector budget in our constituencies from the bids that we receive daily. However, there is a genuine and serious problem, despite the additional welcome funding that we have received from the Government. The problem is technical, and we need to reduce the disparity.
	My hon. Friend the Minister is relatively new to his post. I urge him to bring fresh thinking and a fresh pair of eyes to the debate. I trust that over the next few weeks he will listen carefully to our representations and that he will realise, despite the way in which the speech by the hon. Member for Blaby ended, that there is general cross-party consensus on how we can move forward. The matter is technical, but it can be resolved and it will make an enormous difference. On behalf of all teachers, and especially the hard-working governors who are trying to put together their budgets this year, I urge my hon. Friend to find a way to ensure that if we are to have three-year budgets, they are good three-year budgets for Leicestershire, not poor ones. His school report reads pretty well, but he could do slightly better.

David Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) has covered the ground fairly well. The key point that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) did not make in his summary of the position in Leicestershire was not to pay sufficient attention to the inheritance that our Government acquired on 1 May 1997, in terms of the condition of the capital assets of local education authorities and the condition of schoolsthe absence of ICT networks, the leaking roofs and the poorly equipped laboratories.
	Such things need staff and revenue funding to support them in the medium and long term. No one denies that; but wherever one turns in north-west Leicestershire one can see projects that have benefited from the more far-sighted and generous approach adopted over the last eight years. One can see the laboratories at Castle Donington community college, the IT area at Ibstock community college and the major classroom complex at Broom Leys primary school, which had the highest number of mobile classrooms of any school in the whole of north-west Leicestershire until the problem was tackled relatively early on in the Labour Government.

Andrew Robathan: My experience before May 1997 was not quite as the hon. Gentleman states. There were problems in education then, and I raised them with the Conservative Government at the time. Were there any computers at Ibstock community college, where there is such wonderful IT provision, before 1997?

David Taylor: The number of computers installed has been significantly increased. Of course, technological development has meant that they are much more powerful and more important in the curriculum and other aspects of the school. No one is suggesting that the Labour Government are responsible for technical development in the world of ICTalthough there may be a line in the manifesto that we have not yet seen to cover that.
	I have already referred to Warren Hills community primary school and its head, David Lloyd. There, I also met Noel Melvin, the principal of King Edward VII community collegean upper school in Coalvilleand the head teacher of Castle Rock high school in Coalville. The fabric of that school, like that of a good number of other Leicestershire schools, was built in the mid to late 1960s and has started to deteriorate in a major way. During the period of office of the hon. Gentleman's partybetween 1979 and 1997the school was never able to obtain funding.
	I am pleased to say that, a few weeks ago, I attended the launch of the major building work that is taking place at Castle Rock high school. That is the sort of thing that parents in the Coalville area, which is that school's catchment area, will take into account on general election day, whenever that may beit may be June 2006; we do not knowbut we must not let people take for granted the capital improvements in the infrastructure of schools in north-west Leicestershire and, indeed, the county of Leicestershire. No one suggests that there are not continuing problems. There will always be problems in an education system that attempts to reflect a rapidly changing society and an ever more complex economy. There will always be competing demands and shortfalls relative to the desired expenditure and the projects that need to be financed.
	The hon. Member for Blaby mentioned planning, preparation and assessment, and he is right to suggest that schools are concerned that that must be funded from 1 September 2005. I hope that the Minister will have some words of encouragement in relation to PPA. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he supports the principle of PPA, so do I, and as with a good number of initiatives over many years, the funding of the initiative is as important as its objectives and underpinning principles. Without funding, initiatives will not be successfully implemented and, in some cases, can be counter-productive.
	One of the first Adjournment debates that I initiated during the 1997 to 2001 Government related to bureaucracy and paperwork in primary schools. It is true that the smaller the school, the greater the number of hats that individual teachers need to wear.

Andy Reed: I have written to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and others about the consultation on the school funding arrangements. If, like me, my hon. Friend has visited a school and the head teacher has shown him the accounting books for the previous standards grants, he will know that they are extremely complex and run to many pages on many different aspects of those grants. Does he agree that the new single standard grants will make an enormous difference by simplifying the accounting that takes place?

David Taylor: That is undoubtedly true. I ought to declare an interest: my wife works in the office of Ibstock junior school and a good deal of the paperwork that she tussles with daily could be disposed of if the funding systems were rather more streamlined. It is certainly good to know that there has been some incorporation of one-off standards funds into the main grant distribution formula, but a lot more could be done in that regard.
	The Minister has a great deal to answer in the debate and much of what he says will be positive, but I wish to make a final point. I am not known as a knee-jerk loyalist, and the Whips and the hon. Member for Blaby would assent to that assertion.

Andrew Robathan: indicated assent.

David Taylor: No doubt, the Whips would like such things to happen more often.
	I have raised one thing frequently with Education Ministers. In fact, I shall bring a delegation from a number of schools in the Ashby area to see the Minister's colleagues on 22 March to talk about funding and the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Blaby. However, the one thing that concerns me above all others in relation to the Government's plans for the world of education and the role of local education authoritiesin this case, Leicestershire county councilis that there has been a great deal of talk about the direct funding of schools. The Government have not announced their intention in that regard, but it seems to be an open secret that, some time in a third term, that might emerge as a principle for education funding. I would regret that in a number of ways because it would result in the final enfeeblement of LEAs.
	Although some LEAs have not been successful, particularly in cities, our own LEA in the county of Leicestershire has been a leading-edge authority. It has been successful in community education and in funding music and the arts over a long period. It has been regarded as one of the leading authorities in handling special needs. Indeed, it wasand bravely for an authority that had been Conservative controlled for a long timein the vanguard of comprehensivisation long before it became a national requirement.
	I would regret the enfeeblement and disbandment of the local education authority of Leicestershire. As far as I am aware, Labour has never controlled itcertainly not in the post-war years. We were in the lead on the authority for long periods between 1974 and 1997, but we never had a majority. My remarks are therefore not driven by any political motive, but I would regret the ending of the LEA even though direct funding would at long last tackle the problems that underpin what we are debating. The problems of pockets of deprivation in what is an otherwise prosperous area would, at least and at last, be tackled effectively by the schools in Loughborough, Coalville, Hinckley and in parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaby. They would receive the funding that is appropriate for their particular needs.
	I shall listen closely to the Minister's response. Although it may be invisible to us, I am sure that he has hidden about his person a cheque, which is dated tomorrow, in which the words Leicestershire county council appear in the column for the payee. I look forward to hearing that good news.

Derek Twigg: I might disappoint my hon. Friend on that, but I hope that my speech will reassure him about what is happening to education in Leicestershire.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing the debate. I know of his concerns on this issue and the work that he has done previously. My hon. Friends the Members for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) are also true champions of schools in Leicestershire and have put education at the forefront of their work in the House.
	I would like to start by talking about the performance of schools in Leicestershire. When we speak about education, it is important to recognise the outstanding work that is carried out in our schools. I am pleased to say that the figures published in April 2004 show that there are now 2,500 more teachers in schools across the east midlands than in 1997. The number of support staff has increased from 11,000 in 1997 to 20,000 in 2004. In Leicestershire, regular teaching numbers have increased from 4,800 in January 1998 to 5,220 in January 2004a 9 per cent. increase. Over the same period, the number of school support staff working in the county rose by 73 per cent.from 1,660 to 2,880. The teacher vacancy rate in January 2004 was 0.2 per cent.just 10 vacancies.
	I would like to put on record my gratitude for the work of those teachers and pupils in Leicestershire who have been responsible for significant improvements in the quality of education in the county. For example, the percentage of pupils leaving primary schools in Leicestershire and doing well in English by achieving level 4 and above has risen from 66 per cent. in 1998 to 80 per cent. in 2004, which is two points above the national average. In maths, the increase has been from 62 per cent. to 76 per cent.again, two points above the national average. I am sure that the House will agree that that represents outstanding work in primary schools.
	For the transition to secondary school education there is equally impressive evidence of what is happening in Leicestershire at key stage 3. In English, provisional results show that 80 per cent. of pupils achieved level 5 and above in 2004, which compares well with the national average of 71 per cent. It represents a rise of six percentage points in Leicestershire pupils' achievement since 1998. In mathematics, 81 per cent. of pupils achieve level 5 or more, which is eight points above the 2004 national average of 73 per cent. and a significant increase on the 68 per cent. in 1998. I am pleased to see that the number of Leicestershire pupils achieving five A to C grades at GCSE has continued to increase and is now above the national average.

David Taylor: I come hot foot from a meeting of the curriculum committee of Ashby schoolformerly Ashby grammar schoolof which I was chair of governors until May 1997. Our GCSE results have improved in the most remarkable fashion because the percentage of children getting five or more GCSEs has improved from the middle 40s to the middle 60s, with the proportion now heading for 70 per cent. and beyond. That has been achieved without lavish funding. The school has received some extra funding because it has specialist school status, but nevertheless its funding is the same as that available to all upper schools in Leicestershire.

Derek Twigg: Funding is obviously important, but good school leadership and head teachers, good management in schools, great classroom teaching and community and parental involvement in schools can make all the difference.
	Some 45.8 per cent. of Leicestershire pupils achieved 5 A* to C grade GCSEs in 1998, compared with a national average of 46.3 per cent. However, the proportion increased to 54.7 per cent. in 2004, compared with a national average of 53.7 per cent. The hon. Member for Blaby made a point about pupils from Leicestershire choosing Leicestershire schools. People are deciding that schools in Leicestershire are of a good quality, and I put on record my praise for the work going on in those schools.
	The key issue behind the debate is obviously funding in Leicestershire. It is worth reflecting on the funding increases that Leicestershire has received since the Government came to power. Between 199798 and 200405, we estimate that Leicestershire's funding per pupil has increased in real terms from 2,670 to 3,380, which is an increase of 710 per pupil. Capital investment has also greatly increased. In 199798, capital funding in Leicestershire was only 4.3 million, but in 200405, its allocation was 33.8 million. The authority's allocation so far for 200506 is 22.8 million, which represents a massive improvement.
	I want to consider the national picture before considering specific issues relating to Leicestershire's funding. The education formula spending share is set to rise nationally to 31.6 billion by 200708. That will represent an increase of 5.2 billion from the 26.4 billion figure for 200405, which is a 3.5 per cent. increase in real terms.
	The settlement for 200506 will promote continued stability and certainty for school funding. In brief, in 200506, all secondary and special schools will receive an increase in their delegated budgets of at least 4 per cent. per pupil where pupil numbers stay the same. The guarantee for primary and nursery schools is higher at 5 per cent. per pupil, which is because we recognise that those schools need extra support to implement the final phase of the work force reform from September 2005.
	We have also ensured that every local education authority has the resources, headroom and flexibility to deliver the guarantee and provide support to help schools facing additional pressures. Next year, all LEAs will receive an increase in their schools formula spending share of at least 5.5 per cent. per pupil. Leicestershire's increase is higher, at 6.3 per cent. per pupil, and above the average increase of 5 per cent. per pupil received by Leicestershire in 200405. In 200506, standards fund support, the school standards grant and Learning and Skills Council funding for sixth forms will increase by 4 per cent.

David Taylor: Will the Minister respond directly to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and me? If we are to reduce overheads and bureaucracy, it would be helpful if more of the funding for which bids must be made were incorporated into mainstream formula grants. The standards fund would be a classic example of that.

Derek Twigg: I shall refer to that a little later. The proposed three-year funding settlement for schools is currently out to consultation until May, so I am sure that Leicestershire, and perhaps my hon. Friends, will want to make representations about any specific points.
	Although Leicestershire has, like other authorities, benefited from the significant increases in funding that the Government have committed to education, I know that Leicestershire Members have tabled parliamentary questions and secured Adjournment debates on the per pupil funding received by the authority. I shall explain why Leicestershire's funding per pupil is lower than that of other authorities.
	The Government aim to give all pupils an equal opportunity in life. Pupils from more deprived backgrounds have additional learning needs and thus need extra help to get that equal opportunity. That explains why the funding formula takes account of the deprivation in each authority and gives additional funding accordingly. Schools that serve deprived communities face significant challenges in handling and educating pupils, so they need additional support. As has been said, Leicestershire is less deprived than many other authorities. Its proportion of pupils from families receiving income support, which is the most heavily weighted deprivation factor, is well below average. In 200506, just over 8.8 per cent. of families in Leicestershire received income support, well below the national average for English authorities of 19.4 per cent. of families. Leicestershire is also below the average in terms of the number of families receiving working families tax credit: the LEA national average is 19.1 per cent. of families, whereas in Leicestershire the figure is 17.3 per cent. Leicestershire also has significantly fewer primary pupils with English as a second language.

Andy Reed: Although I recognise that, does my hon. Friend understand how those figures relate to the arguments advanced about little pockets of deprivation? The changes made, especially to the sums available for ethnic minorities, have specifically hit places such as Loughborough, where there is a relatively large ethnic minority population with English as a second language. Will he look again at the impact of the change from section 11 to the new formula, which has made an enormous difference? We are experiencing cuts of up to 40 per cent. in funding for schools, particularly those in the town centre. Will he meet me to discuss that specific issue?

Derek Twigg: I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend, but I repeat that the new funding formula and the three-year deal for schools are out for consultation until May. I am sure that my hon. Friends, schools and councils will make representations in that respect.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be logical and consistent if the money distributed to Leicestershire in recognition of the pockets of deprivation in the county, such as the ones in Loughborough and Coalville, were earmarked for and passported to the schools for which it is intended? Should not the LEA be doing something to ensure that its internal distribution formula reflects that?

Derek Twigg: As my hon. Friend knows, we have been strict about passporting the full amount of money. A New Relationship with Schools and the three-year funding proposal are part of that policy. The LEA is responsible for ensuring that funding gets through to schools.
	Only 2 per cent. of Leicestershire's pupils are from ethnic minority backgrounds, compared with the English national average of 8.7 per cent. The funding formula gives additional resources to sparsely populated areas such as Leicestershire to help to pay transport costs and the higher costs of maintaining a large number of small schools. Sparse authorities face higher costs to deliver the same service, and the formula provides additional resources to high-cost areas to reflect the higher costs of recruiting and retaining staff. In 200506, for the first time, Leicestershire received extra funding for the area cost adjustment to reflect those costs, although not as much as areas in and around London, as has been mentioned. It is for the LEA through its local funding formula to ensure that additional funding for additional needs reaches those schools that need it.
	Our Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, which was published last July, is highly relevant to the debate. It set out the funding changes that we propose to introduce from April 2006. The strategy sets out a promise of greater freedom and independence for schools to run their own affairs, with clear and simple lines of accountability, the security of three-year budgets and greater discretion in how schools spend their standards-related grants. The strategy proposed a package of changes that formed A New Relationship with Schools, which was designed to provide streamlined and proportionate systems of funding and accountability to allow schools to focus on raising standards and improving outcomes for every pupil.
	Since the strategy was published, the Department has worked closely with our national partners through the school funding implementation group to draw up detailed proposals. We are now consulting for 12 weeks, until the middle of May, on those detailed school funding proposals. We propose a dedicated schools grant and three-year budgets for schools aligned to the school year, which will give schools continued stability and predictability and the opportunity to engage in more effective long-term planning, so that they can concentrate on the key role of school improvements, teaching and learning. We also propose to streamline the Department's current standards-related grants to schools through the introduction of a new single standards grant. Local authorities will retain their key role in the local distribution of resources to schools, but, crucially, our proposals will enable authorities to concentrate on their strategic and quality assurance roles in education. Local authorities can add to the dedicated schools grant from their own resources if they wish, but they will not be required to do so.
	Hon. Members asked why we do not propose to review the distribution formula as part of those changes. The three-year budget for schools, the new dedicated schools grant and the single standards grant constitute significant changes in themselves, and undertaking a major review of the distribution formula at the same time would be too much change at once. Moreover, the current formula is still relatively new, having been introduced in 200304, and no substantial evidence has been brought to our attention to suggest that a major review is appropriate. The consultation document, however, proposes minor technical changes to the distribution of the new dedicated schools grant to reflect the fact that more up-to-date data measuring deprivation and sparsity are available than was the case for the distribution of the schools formula spending shares.

David Taylor: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he say a word about the concern that I expressed about the direct funding of schools? That is attractive for schools that serve deprived areas, but it would enfeeble good local education authorities such as Leicestershire, which has a long track record of success in this field.

Derek Twigg: As I said earlier, it is important that LEAs play a strategic role in working with schools on assessment and school improvements, and that is very much at the forefront of their remit.
	We will make final decisions on the new funding arrangements over the summer in the light of responses to the consultation, and we want to ensure that they are implemented successfully. There are no plans for further change, although naturally the distribution formula will be kept under review.
	The work force agreement and PPAplanning, preparation and assessmenthave been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. That reform aims to free teachers to spend more time on their core responsibilities, which include not only classroom teaching but the key professional activities that support teaching, such as planning, preparation and assessment. We have always made it clear that work force reform would largely be funded by the better use of existing resources. Schools can implement the national agreement only by moving towards new ways of working. The more radical schools' grasp of the remodelling agenda, the better the outcomes for teachers and pupils and the lower the costs involved. Schools that abandon unnecessary tasks and redeploy support staff to ensure that the use of their time and expertise is maximised will get the best from the existing information and communications technology infrastructure, reduce reliance on expensive supply teachers, and find the reforms achievable.
	The national remodelling team is working closely with LEAs and other partners to help schools implement changes in support of the agreement. It is working with a network of LEA remodelling advisers who are available to school leaders and can give them help and advice on remodelling the school work force and managing change. The response to training offered by Leicestershire local education authority has been positive. Our understanding is that all schools in Leicestershire have attended the financial management in schools training. As the House knows, we have set the minimum funding guarantee for primary and nursery schools in 200506 at 5 per cent. per pupil1 per cent. higher than for secondary and special schoolsin recognition of the need to meet additional cost pressures in implementing reform from September.
	The Government are confident that the local government settlement is sufficient to enable all schools to implement the national agreement on work force reform in full. Signatories to the agreement have endorsed that view. The funding that local authorities receive on a per pupil basis reflects their relative need compared with other local authorities, and any changes that we make in the future will continue to reflect that.

David Taylor: As the Minister is about to conclude, I would greatly appreciate his observations on the funding of PPA. Schools that are hard-pressed for various social and financial reasons may be unable to find the necessary funding to undertake PPA in the ways anticipated by the designers of the scheme, so teachers will lose that contact time, and the replacement may well be learning support assistants or others. Parents will not be happy if that occurs in a great number of schools.

Derek Twigg: Different schools will face different challenges, but we have increased the funding for primary schools above that for secondary and special schools, and we are providing a great deal of advice through remodelling advisers, the LEAs and so on. I am confident that by working together, with the additional resource that has been allocated to primary schools and better use of existing resource, our goals can be achieved.
	In setting the guarantee increases in 200405 and 200506 we are allowing for additional costs on which authorities and schools are already spending. That is because we are aiming for stability, rather than changing the pattern of spend. Our priority remains stability and certainty in school funding.
	The Conservatives' spending plans entail cuts in education, an apparent determination to take money away from state schools to fund elite and independent schools, and 1 billion of cuts in funding for local education authorities, although they have not yet been able to demonstrate where that will come from. That is in stark contrast to our record, with a part-time nursery place guaranteed for every three and four-year-old, thebest ever primary school results, continually improving results in our secondary schools, significant improvements in results at key stage 3 last year and good A-level results again.

Andrew Robathan: When the Minister trots out such claptrap, he might at least look as though he believes it.

Derek Twigg: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do believe it. It is not claptrapit is fact. That is the difference between the Conservative policy of cutting funding from schools, and our policy of giving more funding to schools, bringing about improvements in schools and ensuring better results than ever.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Ten o'clock.